Am 12.07.11 19:00, schrieb Barney Carroll:
The parsing logic is sound since browsers that don't understand a given syntax on a rule will ignore it, and since the rule declares the entirety of the background property, those that can parse rgba syntax will overwrite the background image defined previously with the implicit 'none' assumed by omission.
Yup. That's the basis of this (1) recipe. Question is: Will the image get loaded despite the override?
However, the rgb portion of rgba needs to be defined in the format of 0 to 255, so to parse the rule effectively the compliant browsers need to be given the property rgba(128,128,128,.5).
Huh? This is entirely new to me. The CSS3 'Colors' module (2) says this: "rgba(255,255,255,0.8) = rgba(100%,100%,100%,0.8)". Or did you mean percentages are not completely/correctly implemented?
Personally I always thought background colour opacity should've been a sub-property of background-color.
Like 'background-color-transparency' or 'border-left-color-transparency'? FWIW rgba() is just fine, it does what I want. Nicely. No need for extra properties here.
Jørgen 1) 4e1c7a86.9010...@gmx.de 2) http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#rgba-color ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] 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/
