W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2004

Re: Opacities

From: Richard York <richy@smilingsouls.net>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 13:48:26 -0500
Message-ID: <40A7B77A.4030507@smilingsouls.net>
To: www-style@w3.org

Anne van Kesteren (fora) wrote:

I also find the lack of ability to separate opacity from foreground and 
background annoying.

> 
>> Is there any reason for not including something like this in CSS3?
> 
> 
> This came along quite recently:
> 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2004Apr/0059.html>
> 
> It wasn't answered by anyone of the CSS WG though. But I think, Ian 
> explained me bit, we don't need it since images already have a 'opacity' 
> that can be applied to them (PNG, SVG). The rest can be done using RGBA 
> and 'opacity'.

Yes, but what about jpeg, the most common image format. If a browser has 
the ability to do opacity on the entire element, then it should also be 
able to separate it between foreground and background, who wants to use 
large bulky PNG files when it could be done with a tiny jpeg and opactiy 
via the browser. Non-support of separating the opacity will result in 
hacks using absolute positioning and the like to get background opacity 
but not foreground opacity.

Personally I think this is a feature that will continue to be requested 
many times. It really isn't a pricey addition anyway since opacity is 
already supported via the opacity property. The convenience and consumer 
demand of such a feature out-weighs any perceived bloatedness (if that's 
a word) it might bring IMHO. By the same token not supporting it will 
result in uneccessary hacks even if the effect can be done with PNG, SVG 
or any other graphic format.

Regards,
Richard York

-- 
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The Spicy Peanut Project
http://www.spicypeanut.net
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Received on Sunday, 16 May 2004 14:48:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:30 GMT