- From: Sigurd Lerstad <sigler@bredband.no>
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:23:35 +0200
- To: "Bert Bos" <bert@w3.org>, <www-style@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
> > Sigurd Lerstad wrote: > > >>>How about a property: > >>> > >>>background-image-opacity: (0..1) > >>> > >>>So for example: > >>> > >>>background-color: white; > >>>background-image: url(me.gif); > >>>background-image-opacity: 0.5 > >> > >>Just use a PNG. > >> > > > > > > I'm aware of png, but that property seems very useful to me. It's a non > > destructive way to turn any image in any format into a watermark background. > > Yes, but how far do you want to go? 'background-image-brightness: -10', > 'background-image-effect: oil-paint'... I want to go as far as opacity. That's how far the CSS WG have gone also. > If these effects have to be done on the client side, then use SVG: wrap > the image in one line of SVG and put an 'opacity' property on that. I > think (hope) future browsers will allow inline SVG and MathML in HTML, > so you don't even need to put the SVG in a separate file if you don't > want to. The SVG renderer will be used even if the SVG is inline. > > I don't think it is a good idea to duplicate functionality in different > technologies (in this case CSS and SVG). Some overlap is OK, but not too > much. It's not a matter of duplicating, you make one module that describes something, and that module can be used both in xml+css and svg. Just like smil animation is used in svg. A UA that supports both simple reuses the same code. -- Sigurd Lerstad
Received on Monday, 22 September 2003 14:22:09 UTC