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

Re: WD-css3-text-20021024 substantive comments

From: Sigurd Lerstad <sigler@bredband.no>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 18:19:27 +0100
Message-ID: <001201c2cadf$3d799090$591273d5@mmstudio>
To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>

Okay, that sounds better :) I should have read the thread more carefully.

> > 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
>   value indicates the priority for this element to make use of any
>   acceleration for its opacity effect. A priority of 'none' means the
>   opacity acceleration may be ignored for this element. Positive integer
>   are treated similarly to HTML's tabindex. Any hardware opacity
>   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. ;)
Received on Saturday, 1 February 2003 11:22:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:05 UTC