W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2003

Re: WD-css3-text-20021024 substantive comments

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 10:28:22 -0500
Message-Id: <200302011528.KAA12560@nerd-xing.mit.edu>
To: "Sigurd Lerstad" <sigler@bredband.no>
cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, www-style@w3.org

> Are you refering to the opacity property in CSS3?

Yes.

> Is it being removed?

Don't believe so.  ;)

If you look at the definition of "opacity" in the current draft, it is:

Value:	    <alphavalue> <priority-index>? | inherit

Where <priority-index> is defined as:

  An optional positive integer value or the keyword 'none'. The <priority-index>
  value indicates the priority for this element to make use of any hardware
  acceleration for its opacity effect. A priority of 'none' means the hardware
  opacity acceleration may be ignored for this element. Positive integer values
  are treated similarly to HTML's tabindex. Any hardware opacity acceleration
  capabilities are allocated in order of the elements with the lowest
  priority-index.

It is this prose (which attempts to coerce user-agents into particular uses of
hardware capabilities) that I was referring to in my original mail.  Ian's
response was that priority-index is being removed, which is great news from my
point of view.

No one is making the <alphavalue> part of the property go away, I would hope. ;)

Boris
-- 
If you put garbage in a computer nothing comes out but
garbage.  But this garbage, having passed through a
very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and none
dare criticize it.
Received on Saturday, 1 February 2003 10:28:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:19 GMT