- From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 17:39:44 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Rudolph Gottesheim <r.gottesheim@loot.at>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
I agree with the spirit of what Tab mentioned in the mail, but I'd say it slightly differently: CSSWG needs to stop doing fanciful things with background-propertyname, and instead do them inside of <image> itself. This is the route both *-gradient and cross-fade went. > -----Original Message----- > From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 8:37 AM > To: Rudolph Gottesheim > Cc: www-style@w3.org > Subject: Re: [css4-background] Background image opacity > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Rudolph Gottesheim > <r.gottesheim@loot.at> wrote: > > Has there been any further discussion on the topic of background > image > > opacity? I've found a brief discussion on this back in 2009: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jun/0010.html > > > > This could be a very welcome addition, especially when transitioning > it. > > Yes, the most recent discussion of this started at > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Sep/0033.html>. In > particular, read my response at > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Sep/0035.html>, as > it respresents our current thinking on the matter. > > ~TJ >
Received on Thursday, 1 December 2011 17:40:45 UTC