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

Re: background-opacity property proposal

From: Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:44:15 +0400
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>,www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <473681315590255@web16.yandex.ru>
No hostility at all, Tab. If it looks like so, then this is erroneous impression.

Can you provide an estimated date of when functionality you mention will be implemented enough to achieve result identical to background-opacity property?



09.09.2011, 21:29, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>:
> 2011/9/9 Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru>:
>
>> šTwo years later, what is estimated date for filter function (and anything related that would provide result identical to background-opacity) to be at least in candidate recommendation status? And what is estimated date for it to be implemented in real browsers?
>>
>> šBenefit of specific solution over "perfectly universal" (but often too complicated) one is that latter will likely never (well, in 10-20 years) be implemented while specific solution could be implemented in 80% of browsers within half-a-year because it's simple to understand and simple to implement while (at least as for background-opacity) would have no harmful consequence at all.
>>
>> šWhen (if) "perfectly universal" solution will be ready, web-developers will be free to use it, but, until that, it make sense to provide simple solutions to conveniently solve real-world problems.
>
> Dude, it really doesn't help when you're being both hostile and
> somewhat clueless. šChill.
>
> The 'filter' property is already implemented in all browsers (I think
> - it's part of SVG, which they all support now). šFirefox supports it
> on HTML content as well, and other browsers should follow in the near
> future. šThe filter() function is relatively trivial once the rest of
> the machinery is in place (which it is).
>
> 'background-opacity' is a subset of the functionality allowed by
> filters. šAdding duplicate functionality always carries a negative
> cost. šIt's sometimes useful to add things like this, if the feature
> is sufficiently common and desirable and the alternative functionality
> is sufficiently complex. šIf the balance comes up negative, though, we
> should pass on it. šFiltering an image is only slightly more complex
> than using 'background-opacity'. šThus, the WG decided that
> 'background-opacity' isn't worth adding to the language.
>
> There is no reason to believe that Filters will be unduly delayed,
> given that most of the machinery is already implemented in browsers.
> Your assertion of "never ([or] 10-20 years)" is completely ridiculous
> and without merit.
>
> ~TJ
Received on Friday, 9 September 2011 17:44:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:44 GMT