Join GitHub today
[css-masking] Support <g> element in clipping paths #17
See the following thread in www-svg: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2016Aug/0000.html
I asked there why groups were not allowed in
Currently browser behaviour is mixed (see test https://jsfiddle.net/g9p82y7c/):
Chrome: clip path succeeds but any groups are ignored
Firefox originally allowed groups, but that was "fixed" to bring it in line with the spec.
There are useful use cases for allowing groups:
The original reason for the restriction is unclear, but if there are no strong technical reasons to prevent it, it would be desirable to ease this restriction.
I offer no opinion on whether
referenced this issue
May 19, 2017
The WG had no intention to change the general behavior of
Example 1: Rect with
In addition to that the spec states:
Safari, Chrome and Edge handle use elements with indirect references as "not being part of the content model" and simply ignore those. This is not what the spec says which asks to ignore the
The behavior of Safari, Chrome and Edge are consistent with each other. And seem to follow the error handling sentiment of pathData errors in SVG 1.1: https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/implnote.html#ErrorProcessing I personally like this but this needs to get discussed with the WGs.
Or remove it entirely.
Needs CSSWG Input/Decision
Needs SVGWG Input/Decision
Jan 6, 2018
The Working Group just discussed
The full IRC log of that discussion<AmeliaBR> Topic: Support <g> element is clipping paths
<AmeliaBR> Github: https://github.com/w3c/fxtf-drafts/issues/17
<AmeliaBR> Amelia: I definitely support this as something I'd like to see in the future, but can be deferred for now.
<AmeliaBR> ... I don't think there is any real implementation reason for not allowing it, I think it was just a DTD convenience. Didn't want to allow <g>, because then it would automatically allow anything that is allowed in <g>.
<AmeliaBR> Dirk: There would still always be implementation complexities. I'm in favour of deferring to a future spec, if only because it's not implemented anywhere.
<AmeliaBR> Bogdan: Is that one of the suggestions you mention in the discussion, you've got some suggested edits there.
<AmeliaBR> Amelia: Looks like that's a slightly different issue, about indirect <use> references. Edge supports them, other browsers don't.
<AmeliaBR> Dirk: At this point, I don't expect to get any implementation changes in time for this level of the spec.
<AmeliaBR> ... I think that's what the spec says.
<AmeliaBR> Amelia: I think the other issue is error handling. We don't know whether we really have cross-browser consistency in how they handle error states.
<AmeliaBR> Dirk: That should maybe be another issue.
<AmeliaBR> Bogdan: Even there, according to the notes in the issue, it looks like we have almost consistency, across 3 browsers.
<AmeliaBR> Amelia: Sounds like a good resolution, for all the details, is to run tests & then try to make the spec match browser behavior.
<AmeliaBR> Dirk: Sounds good to me.
<BogdanBrinza> resolution: develop the tests to find the interoperable core of the error handling and match the specification to that
<AmeliaBR> Bogdan: If that's the last issue, let's wrap up early. Thank you very much for a productive call.
<AmeliaBR> trackbot, end telcon