On Jul 12, 2008, at 2:15 PM, Marshal Horn wrote:
> I know someone's asked this, but I've never been around to hear it :)
> With the assumption that transparencies are implemented in current
> browsers as per CSS3 standard, what reason does W3 have for not
> allowing tags to become opaque when their parent tags have a
> transparency of less that one? (It's like inheriting font size, but
> allowing it only to become larger, not smaller).
>
> A reference:
> http://css-tricks.com/non-transparent-elements-inside-transparent-elements/
It is a common misunderstanding of what opacity ('transparency')
means. Most people seem to associate it with 'transparent
backgrounds' but that is not what the CSS 3 colour module specifies.
It says [1]
[quote]
The uniform opacity setting to be applied across an entire object
[/quote]
In other words, 'opacity' is applied to an _entire_ element (border,
background, foreground) and all its descendants. And no, it has
nothing to do with inheritance.
It is like in photoshop, when you set the opacity for a layer to <1,
everything in that layer becomes transparent.
Most people think about it as 'make the background transparent'. For
that you need to use RGBA or HSLA colours [2] (which you also can
apply to borders, foreground colours).
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#transparency
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#rgba-color
http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#hsla-color
Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://l-c-n.com/
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
