On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: >> I was talking about appearance, not CSS inheritance. >> The image will look as if it has alpha and should render with alpha >> according to the element() spec. The stacking context that #src belongs to, >> has alpha. > > And where this "should render with alpha according to the element() spec" > comes from? > > Do you mean this: > "That is, the image must look identical to the > referenced element, modulo rasterization quality." ? > > If "yes" then "look identical" term appears as quite > permissive by itself. Two boxes can be treated as looking > identical even they use different fill color. I have no idea what definition of "identical" you're using where different fills can be considered "identical". > Term "rasterization quality" in CSS specification looks enthetic. > Why it is mentioned there at all? > > And the whole element() thing treats rendering with > transform:skew(30deg); and without it for example as identical > for some reason. Looks like an artificial hack trying to solve > particular use case. Uh, no. That's not "treating it as identical". I shut off ancestor transforms for a specific reason - it seems unlikely that it will match what's expected (especially when you're referring to, say, a canvas), and because it makes the rendering harder. ~TJReceived on Thursday, 2 August 2012 17:03:23 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:19 UTC