W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2009

Re: [css3-background] possibly too late for last call, but: background-opacity?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:01:35 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0910190601p1b96f245nc2463bd44fc63e2a@mail.gmail.com>
To: Giovanni Campagna <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com>
Cc: robert@ocallahan.org, www-style@w3.org
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Giovanni Campagna
<scampa.giovanni@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/10/18 Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>:
>> OK, I think I see what you mean. I'd use 'filter' for that and add a named
>> "CSSContent" filter image.
> Uhm... no CSS only solution? I supposed this was a goal when you
> designed gradients, for example.

In general, I'm fine with delegating functionality like this to SVG,
which already has the necessary complexity built-in.  There's no need
to do *everything* in pure CSS when we'd just be duplicating a
companion technology.

Gradients are a special case, as they're extremely common (more common
even than the use of opacity outside of actual images), can be
expressed *much* more succinctly than in SVG, and can benefit from
more box information than can be easily captured by an SVG image.

For less-used options which are either more complex in CSS or less
complex in SVG, though, there's a cutoff where the cost of extending
CSS outweighs the cost of requiring the use of a separate technology.
Coming up with a good, general solution for SVG filters in CSS expands
our options *greatly*, and also will allow us to see what sort of
effects are really desirable but currently too hard to achieve, for
possible porting back into pure CSS.

Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 13:02:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:29 UTC