W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2011

RE: [css4-background] Background image opacity

From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 17:39:44 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Rudolph Gottesheim <r.gottesheim@loot.at>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9710FCC2E88860489239BE0308AC5D170450BECE@TK5EX14MBXC264.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
I agree with the spirit of what Tab mentioned in the mail, but I'd say it slightly differently:

CSSWG needs to stop doing fanciful things with background-propertyname, and instead do them inside of <image> itself.

This is the route both *-gradient and cross-fade went.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 8:37 AM
> To: Rudolph Gottesheim
> Cc: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [css4-background] Background image opacity
> 
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Rudolph Gottesheim
> <r.gottesheim@loot.at> wrote:
> > Has there been any further discussion on the topic of background
> image
> > opacity? I've found a brief discussion on this back in 2009:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jun/0010.html

> >
> > This could be a very welcome addition, especially when transitioning
> it.
> 
> Yes, the most recent discussion of this started at
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Sep/0033.html>.  In
> particular, read my response at
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Sep/0035.html>, as
> it respresents our current thinking on the matter.
> 
> ~TJ
> 

Received on Thursday, 1 December 2011 17:40:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:47 GMT