W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > June 2019

Re: [csswg-drafts] [fill-stroke] [filter-effects] [css-color] percentage opacity (#3342)

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 16:53:06 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-505958044-1561567985-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The CSS Working Group just discussed `percentage opacity`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: No change to spec`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: percentage opacity<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3342<br>
&lt;dael> ericwilligers: The argument is opacity can be % or number. opacity prop says same. Not browser impl that. We're proposing to impl but want to ping other browsers to make sure they're okay with it.<br>
&lt;dael> ericwilligers: to allow opacity to accept %<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: Has anyone looked and found reason not to? Or has no one prioritized?<br>
&lt;dael> myles: We're happy to adopt. % opacity is good in every context<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Other opinions or objections to resolve in favor of %?<br>
&lt;dael> ericwilligers: Moz?<br>
&lt;dael> emilio: No strong opinion. Reasonable. As long as it doesn't cause a conflict<br>
&lt;dael> ericwilligers: Serializes as a number<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: We don't have anywhere we're using opacity and they're ambig. In color it's defined by positio in param list. In all others it's single value. No parsing concern<br>
&lt;dael> ericwilligers: Thanks everyone<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: It's resolve no change to spec.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Prop: No change to spec<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: No change to spec<br>

GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3342#issuecomment-505958044 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2019 16:53:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 19 October 2021 01:31:10 UTC