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.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 13:02:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:21 GMT