- From: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:15:37 -0700
- To: Zoffix Znet <zoffix@zoffix.com>
- Cc: Pascal Germroth <pascal@germroth.name>, www-style@w3.org
The definition of this property can't be changed (for Apple at
least), since we've shipped it with the real name.
dave
(hyatt@apple.com)
On Apr 30, 2007, at 6:09 PM, Zoffix Znet wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 12:17 +0200, Pascal Germroth wrote:
>
>> Maybe values > 1 should be allowed for opacity? For example:
>>
>> #photo { opacity : 2; }
>>
>> Would mean that the element, whose pixels have an "effective"
>> opacity of
>> 0.5 would have the "effective" opacity of its pixels doubled, to 1.0,
>> meaning they are rendered with double opacity, which is then
>> halved by
>> the body element and appears thus just plain opaque to the viewer.
>>
>> I don't know if this could be implemented as graphics libraries often
>> "clamp" the colour values to [0;1]...
>>
>>
>
> Hm, I was more thinking of the opacity being like this:
>
> <div id="parent">
> <div id="child">
> </div>
> </div>
>
> #parent { opacity: .5; }
>
> #child { opacity: 1;}
>
> Now, everything is rendered according to the way `opacity` works right
> now. The exception will be that since #child has `opacity` set too, it
> would be, umm, I guess I can say "re-rendered" with the opacity value
> that is set on it. Thus the #parent will be half-transparent, but the
> child will be rendered without any transparency.
>
> What I mean, is that if an element has `opacity` property set it
> should
> be re-rendered with the set opacity which would not relate to the
> one of
> parent's
>
> --
> Thank you for your time.
>
> Regards, Zoffix Znet
>
> ( http://zoffix.com , http://haslayout.net )
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 01:15:43 UTC