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

I’m not on a quest to convince others here. Just suggesting. I leave it to
others, more acquainted with the different CSS3 specifications to decide
whether my suggestion is useful and time saving.

However, I’d finally want to give a reply to the answers I got:

> "Sebastian Zartner" <sebastianzartner@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:CAERejNZj3u30g5Mx_mPNs867vPEcxWTRXUbVtEYH4azQ7pKCsw@mail.gmail.com...
> > 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.

Hmm, yes... Well, I tend to believe the suggestions I get to feign a similar
result to a simple watermark keyword are getting more and more awkward and
cumbersome.

Compare your and Tab’s verbose and fragile solution to a simple:
    background: front cross_fade(50% “SomeImage.png"), black;

What's easier and more compact? What's more like a single keyword to a 
single feature?


> > 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.

You are right, "complicated" was the wrong term here. I should have written
"cumbersome". And one wouldn't want to argue that a single keyword added to
a property isn't much simpler than writing three or four properties with
still questionable successful result, would one?


> > Moreover, 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.

Yes, that'd be great.


> > 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.

That might have been tempting to specification authors, but not to the rest
of the world. See: At this time, there is not a single browser out there
that supports CSS3 or HTML5. Each browser lacks more than just one or the
other property. The only common denominator that can be applied to create a
browser compatible website at this time is to use CSS2.1 and HTML4. Doesn't
this ring a bell to anyone? CSS3 (or the plethora of specifications they
tend to call "the CSS3 family") has become a moving target. A mountain top
that never can be reached as the mountain grows and grows.

Splitting the CSS3 specification into several smaller modules, "precious" to
each of their authors, has tainted them. In psychology, what currently
happens to all these different CSS3 authors is called Completion Anxiety.
They don't want the CSS3 specification to get finished. CSS3 is never to get 
completed by them. If that happened, their authors would be anxious to lose 
their precious - their daily reason for going to work.

But getting lost in those different specification parts wasn't the original 
target of the authors. They just missed to specify something simple like a 
deadline to CSS3 as a whole.


> No use of backgrounds would satisfy your first criteria.
> A background is in the back by its nature. It can't be in the front.

No, not at this time. But if that keyword was added, yes.
Instead of calling that keyword "front" you could call the keyword
"watermark" as well. Would this keyword better fit a background semantic?

Axel

Received on Friday, 20 February 2015 20:35:36 UTC