- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:43:14 -0700
- To: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
- CC: robert@ocallahan.org, "Ph. Wittenbergh" <jk7r-obt@asahi-net.or.jp>, W3C Style List <www-style@w3.org>
David Hyatt wrote:
> On Jul 9, 2008, at 3:53 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>
>>
>> In fact it should be rendered as this:
>> http://terrainformatica.com/w3/opacity-probe-rendering.png
>> as opacity is not inherited by default (so div.kid is not transparent).
>
> We cannot change this. I do not understand why you are just bringing
> this up now. The vendor prefixes were dropped from opacity ages
> ago. It's done.
What specification was used for implementing this? That is a point.
I doubt that any existing designs rely on the fact that opacity
establishes new stacking context. So you can change this.
Treating elements with opacity as new stack context roots is unnatural
from human point of view as meaning of 'opacity '
is quite far from stacking context.
I mean it is very hard to explain to ordinary human why div.kid below
is rendered with opacity 0.25 rather than 0.5.
That is far from the concept of out-of-flow and positioned elements I think.
<html>
<head>
<style>
html { background:url(hatch.gif) repeat; }
div { border:3px solid black; }
div.container { background-color:yellow; width:100px; height:100px;
opacity:0.5; }
div.kid { position:absolute; background-color:magenta; width:100px;
height:100px; left:25px; top:25px; z-index:100; opacity:0.5;}
div.stranger { position:absolute; background-color:orange;
width:100px; height:100px; left:50px; top:50px; }
div:hover { border-color:red; }
</style>
<head>
<body>
<div class="container">
div.container
<div class="kid">div.kid</div>
</div>
<div class="stranger">div.stranger</div>
</body>
</html>
--
Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 21:44:02 UTC