W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: Transparency and linked objects was Re: javascript dhtml and browser variations

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:32:57 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200107032132.f63LWva12020@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Does this refers to transparency within an image, or is it transparency of
> an object other than an image.

Objects other than images.  That's why I mentioned the PNG case of
partial transparency which confuses the issue.  Transparency in an image
can be treated as a special case of partial transparency, and the view
tended towards not making opacity (alpha) = 0.000 a special case.

> If it refers to images was this implemented?
> why does it only relate to png and not gif images?
> perhaps someone could expand?

Unless it has appeared in an errata, one cannot tell what official
policy is from the public mailing lists, only attempt to judge the
consensus (W3C decision processes are closed; the mailing lists are
largely a one way channel into W3C).  Even if a clarification is added
to an errata, past performance of browser developers suggests that it
will take up to four years to get implemented - as I already pointed
out a problem with links and z-order that doesn't involve transparency
has not yet been scheduled for a fix in Mozilla.

At the moment, I think that is an ambiguity in the specification (NB
W3C specification are deliberately ambiguous in many areas, to allow for
different user interface solutions; you need to design to the behaviour
guaranteed by the specification not particular implementations).
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2001 18:32:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:13 UTC