- From: <Matthew.van.Eerde@hbinc.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 08:58:04 -0700
- To: <ian@hixie.ch>, <thebrunger@yahoo.com>
- Cc: <www-style@w3.org>, <Bert.Bos@sophia.inria.fr>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Brian Hunger wrote:
>>
>> alpha!
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#rgba-color
>
> Already supported by Safari.
On that note: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#numerical says
"transparent" is short for rgba(0, 0, 0, 0). Wouldn't it be better to
say it's short for rgba(255, 255, 255, 0)? I'm not trying to quibble.
I'm just envisioning a day when this is all DOM-ized and someone wants
to do
document.getElementById(...).style.backgroundColor.opacity = 0.5;
and I'd rather a "transparent" element opacify to white rather than to
black.
Matthew.van.Eerde@hbinc.com 805.964.4554 x902
Hispanic Business Inc./HireDiversity.com Software Engineer
perl -e"map{y/a-z/l-za-k/;print}shift" "Jjhi pcdiwtg Ptga wprztg,"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: pub key http://matthew.vaneerde.com/pgp-public-key.asc
iD8DBQFBN0MMUQQr0VWaglwRAvmZAKC6BKS7WC+v5VOMTmrGdF0HBtB5DwCfWFti
swFQT3oZt2zm3Y/3ZrTRMvU=
=GGme
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 2 September 2004 15:58:09 UTC