W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2013

Re: [css3-background] A property to control background opacity

From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 10:04:06 +0000
To: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
CC: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, David <david.email@ymail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A14C0319-619A-4342-9CE3-5AB190562525@adobe.com>

On Dec 27, 2013, at 7:54 AM, Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com> wrote:

> On 27/12/2013 1:47 PM, Alan Gresley wrote:
> 
>> In 3.1. 'Layering Multiple Background Images' is the following:
>> 
>>   | Each of the images is sized, positioned, and tiled
>>   | according to the corresponding value in the other
>>   | background properties. The lists are matched up from
>>   | the first value: excess values at the end are not used.
>> 
>> Considering that 'background-image: filter()' came into the discussion,
>> we begun talking about a 'background tile' that is not exposed to these
>> 'other background properties'. The image itself in the url() buried
>> within the filter function is not effected (sized, positioned, and
>> tiled) by the 'other background properties'. Only the 'background tile'
>> itself is effected by the 'other background properties'.
> 
> I believe I am completely wrong about this. The background tile has the same bounds.

I tried to say that before. There is no difference between the filter() image function or any other CSS Image. All are sized, tiled, repeated and positioned according to the responsible background properties. (For background of course, CSS Images can be used for other properties as well.)

Greetings,
Dirk

> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Alan Gresley
> http://css-3d.org/
> http://css-class.com/
Received on Friday, 27 December 2013 10:04:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:17 UTC