- From: Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:58:18 +0100
- To: Glenn Adams <gadams@xfsi.com>
- Cc: "public-tt@w3.org TTWG List" <public-tt@w3.org>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
On 29 Jun 2009, at 00:05, Glenn Adams wrote: > The word "transparency" as appears in prose in DFXP is not the same > as the keyword "transparent" which is a specific named color value. Of course. > The word "transparency" is not used normatively in the language. The work "transparency" is used in the text for [8.2.14 tts:opacity], which looks like a normative section of the specification. Or maybe it should be marked "informative" ? (actually I'm not sure whether the DFXP specification explicitly distinguishes between "normative" and "informative" sections...) > I believe there is nothing misleading about the use in 8.2.14 if one > merely applies the conceptual fact that "transparency" is the > inverse of "opacity". http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/#style-attribute-opacity The text in the specification implies that "opacity" is a synonym of "transparency", which is obviously not the case: "...that defines the opacity (or transparency) of marks..." The specification should leave no room for personal interpretation: if "transparency" is the conceptual opposite of "opacity", then make it explicit. Or avoid mentioning "(or transparency)" all together.
Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 07:58:59 UTC