W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2015

Re: [css-backgrounds] Add opacity to <bg-layer> definition

From: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:30:13 +0100
Message-ID: <CAERejNZj3u30g5Mx_mPNs867vPEcxWTRXUbVtEYH4azQ7pKCsw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Axel Dahmen <brille1@hotmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 11 February 2015 at 13:53, Axel Dahmen <brille1@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Use an abspos with 'opacity' and "pointer-events: none;", with
> 'transform' if you want to rotate.
> That would not only involve adding an additional block element,

Note that you can do that via a pseudo-element like ::after, so you don't
have to touch your HTML.

but also would involve a number of rather complicated CSS from all
> different specs of CSS.

Adding four or five properties isn't really complicated.

> Morever, there is no rotate() angle definition in the CSS spec that's
> defining a rotation angle that's dynamically rotating an image to reach
> from one corner of a box to the opposing corner of that same box.

That is something that could be added to the rotate() function.

> That said, CSS has become a Medusa of different specifications, partially
> overlapping each other. I believe it's time to consolidate all those
> different ideas into one straight specification.

The specification was intentionally split into smaller modules to be able
to track them individually in order to get updates more quickly.

 No use of backgrounds would satisfy your first criteria.
> Hmm, you don't seem to have received my previous message. I have suggested
> a simple addendum to the <bg-layer> definition that in fact WOULD satisfy
> my first criteria, along with all the others, without much ado:

A background is in the back by its nature. It can't be in the front.

Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2015 21:31:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:51 UTC