W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2005

Re: [css3-background] comments

From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 11:12:56 +0200
Message-ID: <4258EE18.80605@students.cs.uu.nl>
To: www-style@w3.org

Barry wrote:
> Emrah BASKAYA wrote:
>> Tho I like it, I am not surprised there are people who doesn't. 
>> Leaving it
>> to the user-agent is still a good idea. Then the user-agent will have the
>> option to turn it on or off. So it should be the user-agents problem, as
>> I've said earlier.
> 
> Text needs to be legible, but graphics like borders need to look good. A
> user agent should provide an option to turn off anti-aliasing even for
> non-text because it's an easy feature to implement, but I don't think 
> anyone
> would complain about a slightly anti-aliased corners, like the ones in
> http://www.fabrica.com/Graphics/HCR/ShapesRounded.jpg .

Specifying anti-aliasing is outside of the scope of CSS. CSS is not 
pixel-perfect. User agents may very well implement anti-aliasing as it 
is very much possible and logical for things such as rounded borders, 
but I don’t see why such a thing should be in the spec.

Specifying the *amount* of anti-aliasing especially seems overkill to 
me, antialiasing is antialiasing. If the display device is a TFT screen 
the UA could use sub-pixel AA, and if the display colour depth is too 
low it could use no AA at all. What you’re talking about (2 pixels of 
anti-aliasing??) starts to sound more like shadow, or ‘glow’.

If the user agent programmers decide to make an implementation without 
anti-aliasing, why shouldn’t they be allowed to. And rest assured they 
too see the jaggies, they’re not blind, and know that they aren’t 
pretty. But there may be several reasons for leaving AA for later.

I think getting border-radius to work on more than one UA is more 
important right now. And once that’s the case people could worry about 
anti-aliasing, although it still shouldn’t be in the spec.


> If any of the browsers that I care about don't support border anti-aliasing
> in one way or another, I'll use images.

You do that. >_<

Now unless someone’s going to bring in some new ideas to this and some 
of the other discussions, I’m getting a bit tired of it. I think we all 
agree AA is good, there’s no point discussing that.

When discussing new things, let’s also not invent new syntax for 
everything we want. I think proposing one or a few additional properties 
has a much higher chance of success. It would also be good to know the 
scope of CSS, and stick to it, meaning that amongst others CSS is not 
XSL nor pixel-perfect, nor that that is going to change radically. That 
would be a nice step towards more useful discussions instead of just 
complaining or proposing things the CSS wg will reject in an instant.


To say something more on-topic, my personal request at the moment is to 
be able to let background images start in other corners than the top 
left without having to use percentages. This is useful when you want to 
create a rollover effect for an image at the bottom right using a single 
image with different offsets, something which is not currently possible 
(or at least hard to do).


~Grauw

-- 
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!!
Received on Sunday, 10 April 2005 09:12:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:36 GMT