- From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 11:12:56 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
Barry wrote: > Emrah BASKAYA wrote: >> Tho I like it, I am not surprised there are people who doesn't. >> Leaving it >> to the user-agent is still a good idea. Then the user-agent will have the >> option to turn it on or off. So it should be the user-agents problem, as >> I've said earlier. > > Text needs to be legible, but graphics like borders need to look good. A > user agent should provide an option to turn off anti-aliasing even for > non-text because it's an easy feature to implement, but I don't think > anyone > would complain about a slightly anti-aliased corners, like the ones in > http://www.fabrica.com/Graphics/HCR/ShapesRounded.jpg . Specifying anti-aliasing is outside of the scope of CSS. CSS is not pixel-perfect. User agents may very well implement anti-aliasing as it is very much possible and logical for things such as rounded borders, but I don’t see why such a thing should be in the spec. Specifying the *amount* of anti-aliasing especially seems overkill to me, antialiasing is antialiasing. If the display device is a TFT screen the UA could use sub-pixel AA, and if the display colour depth is too low it could use no AA at all. What you’re talking about (2 pixels of anti-aliasing??) starts to sound more like shadow, or ‘glow’. If the user agent programmers decide to make an implementation without anti-aliasing, why shouldn’t they be allowed to. And rest assured they too see the jaggies, they’re not blind, and know that they aren’t pretty. But there may be several reasons for leaving AA for later. I think getting border-radius to work on more than one UA is more important right now. And once that’s the case people could worry about anti-aliasing, although it still shouldn’t be in the spec. > If any of the browsers that I care about don't support border anti-aliasing > in one way or another, I'll use images. You do that. >_< Now unless someone’s going to bring in some new ideas to this and some of the other discussions, I’m getting a bit tired of it. I think we all agree AA is good, there’s no point discussing that. When discussing new things, let’s also not invent new syntax for everything we want. I think proposing one or a few additional properties has a much higher chance of success. It would also be good to know the scope of CSS, and stick to it, meaning that amongst others CSS is not XSL nor pixel-perfect, nor that that is going to change radically. That would be a nice step towards more useful discussions instead of just complaining or proposing things the CSS wg will reject in an instant. To say something more on-topic, my personal request at the moment is to be able to let background images start in other corners than the top left without having to use percentages. This is useful when you want to create a rollover effect for an image at the bottom right using a single image with different offsets, something which is not currently possible (or at least hard to do). ~Grauw -- Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!!
Received on Sunday, 10 April 2005 09:12:51 UTC