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

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

From: Axel Dahmen <brille1@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 21:45:54 +0100
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <mc86ir$tu$1@ger.gmane.org>
AS I just wrote, 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.

> "Tab Atkins Jr."  schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
> news:CAAWBYDDMbZ22E=vL6WbyJ31wk6H3xWP=rv_9mLX=1hkB-7v+gw@mail.gmail.com...
> 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.

Yes, you are right, but this doesn't apply to a single atomic feature.

> 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.

As we know from the linear-gradient property, the actual angle changes 
depending on the viewport, may it by resizing the browser window or by just 
printing a web page. So a more dynamic solution would be very appropriate 

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

As I just wrote to Sebastian, I'm trying to simplify the standard. I'm not 
trying to blow it up. And I believe it's sensitive to add such simple 

> > 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.

Not at all. As you know, the HTML5 specification is split into several 
pages, too. I'm actually a bit confused about your argument.

> 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.

Not at all if you consider simplicity over fragility. I don't believe the 
"background" property to be complicated, nor cumbersome. It's just a pile of 
images/colours, nothing more.

I just suggest to add to the pile not only from below, but also from above, 
as I mentioned in my detailed reply to Sebastian.

Received on Friday, 20 February 2015 20:49:09 UTC

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