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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 08:49:58 +1100
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDMbZ22E=vL6WbyJ31wk6H3xWP=rv_9mLX=1hkB-7v+gw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Axel Dahmen <brille1@hotmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:53 PM, 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, but also
> would involve a number of rather complicated CSS from all different specs of
> CSS. 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.

The argument that "I need to look at multiple specs" doesn't seem very
realistic; you need to do that already to handle all the various
aspects of CSS in your page.

You're right that there's no way to dynamically compute the rotation
angle to stretch between the corners; the closest thing we have to
that is the magic angle computation of corner-to-corner gradients.
But most watermarks I've seen are either at a 45deg angle, or roughly
stretch from corner-to-corner on a page of known size, which you can
compute or just vaguely guess at yourself.

Note that your suggestion is just for an <angle>, which won't
dynamically compute a corner-to-corner rotation either.

> You wrote:
>>>
>>> Lots of things might be reasonable.  But they all grow the language.
>
> Absolutely agree. I'm, however, suggesting something simple. Something
> reasonable that's going to simplify the language.

"It's only a tiny, little, thin mint."
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJZPzQESq_0> ^_^

> 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.

That doesn't reduce any complexity, it just puts all of it in a single
document that takes longer to load.

>> 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:

I responded to the email before I read your following one, but it
doesn't make much of a difference; it should become clear that you're
not asking for a background at all at this point, just trying to use
the background syntax as a generic "put an image on the element" tool.

The 'background' property is already one of the more complicated
individual parts of CSS; complexifying it further for the sake of
something you can already do with existing CSS is a hard sell.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2015 21:50:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:52:01 UTC