atom feed21 messages in org.w3.www-styleRe: Proposal: background-image-opacit...
FromSent OnAttachments
MarkJun 1, 2009 1:43 pm 
Boris ZbarskyJun 2, 2009 9:21 am 
Brad KemperJun 2, 2009 9:38 am 
Tab Atkins Jr.Jun 2, 2009 9:43 am 
Giovanni CampagnaJun 2, 2009 9:58 am 
Brad KemperJun 2, 2009 10:04 am 
MarkJun 2, 2009 10:11 am 
Tab Atkins Jr.Jun 2, 2009 10:24 am 
MarkJun 2, 2009 11:44 am 
Giovanni CampagnaJun 2, 2009 11:52 am 
Robert O'CallahanJun 2, 2009 12:03 pm 
Robert O'CallahanJun 2, 2009 12:04 pm 
David HyattJun 2, 2009 2:15 pm 
Simon FraserJun 2, 2009 9:17 pm 
David HyattJun 3, 2009 1:14 am 
Tab Atkins Jr.Jun 3, 2009 7:04 am 
Brad KemperJun 3, 2009 8:05 am 
Simon FraserJun 3, 2009 9:18 am 
Brad KemperJun 3, 2009 9:28 am 
David WoolleyJun 4, 2009 12:26 am 
David WoolleyJun 4, 2009 12:41 am 
Subject:Re: Proposal: background-image-opacity or background-opacity
From:Simon Fraser (sm@me.com)
Date:Jun 3, 2009 9:18:19 am
List:org.w3.www-style

On Jun 3, 2009, at 7:04 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

The issue, though, is that this type of property is (a) specific to backgrounds, when there are a lot of places where we probably want crossfade transitions, and (b) really *only* necessary for transitions, as any place where you are layering static backgrounds or other images you can adjust the opacity yourself in any common image editor.

That's true, but doing so forces you to use an alpha PNG, which is considerably larger than the equivalent opaque GIF or JPEG.

We've also run into situations where separate control of the background and foreground opacity of an element would be useful. The existing opacity property has the disadvantage that it is applied after compositing with descendants, so it's impossible for a child to be more opaque than its parent.

Simon