Re: Opacity 0-1: Bad Idea?

Well, in that case then I think it should work fine -- if you can go out to so many decimal places you can get pretty much anything you want (after a little figuring out).
> The use of 0-1 for opacity actually is consistent with a number of other standards, especially in the programmatic use of the property.
After I sent the message I thought about that too....   - though I wasn't sure.

BTW, sorry about the bad wording of my message.  It was my first post here and I didn't bother to check over my post till after I sent it. :)
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Kurt Cagle 
  To: Kevin 
  Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 8:39 PM
  Subject: Re: Opacity 0-1: Bad Idea?


  Kevin,
  www-style@w3.org
  The use of 0-1 for opacity actually is consistent with a number of other standards, especially in the programmatic use of the property. There is not, as far as I'm aware, any specific limitation about working with 0.1 intervals, however -- 0.1352553 is a perfectly valid opacity.

  -- Kurt Cagle
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Kevin 
    To: www-style@w3.org 
    Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 5:29 PM
    Subject: Opacity 0-1: Bad Idea?


    In the world of computer graphics, there are generally two ways to do opacity.
    They either range from 0 to 100 (aka 0$ to 100%).
    or they range from 0 to 256 (thus mor in line with the 256 used to mix colors).

    The first is perhaps easier to understand.
    The second can be useful if you are doing something that needs to be exact.

    However, I am fully convinced of W3's method of using a value from 0 to 1.  It seems neither easy (intuitive as in 0 to 100%) or exacting (as in the standard 256).
    Also, if you can only use 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .... to- 1   and not things like .13  for 13% then I believe this method is gonna be rather limiting in the future.

    So I guess the question is can you only increment 10% at a time as in 0 (0%)  .1  (10%)  etc....?