Re: background-image-opacity suggestion

> 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
> 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