On 11/30/2009 06:01 PM, Ecaterina Valica wrote: > Hi, > > One of the WCAG requirements is to have all our CSS Level 2.1 valid. > I saw we have exceptions on the elements we cover in our validation and I > would like to know your opinion about: *opacity* CSS propriety. > > *Opacity* is a CSS 3 valid property, but not a CSS 2.1. > > The main components (that I know) that can be affected by not having * > opacity* are: modalPopup.css (for Ctrl+G "Go To" feature) and lightbox.css > (for the boxes in Administation: Users, Groups). Without *opacity* they look > disconnected from XWiki. > > *Opacity* used to be used in Panel Wizard, but got removed because of the > WCAG and because it didn't changed much on an aspect level. It can be used > in lots of places like tooltips, use to be in WYSIWYG disabled buttons etc. > > The main problem about *opacity* is that if we are gonna make it an > exception, because of IE6, we are gonna need to make other proprieties > exceptions (*filter, zoom*). > IE’s CSS uses *filter* instead of *opacity* and also needs (for some > elements) *zoom* propriety in order to apply it correctly. > > I need to know your opinion in order to complete our CSS files validation.
WCAG requires valid CSS, and valid CSS3 is still valid CSS, it's just that there are no validators that know about CSS3 yet. The way the opacity is generally used is through Prototype, since it provides cross-browser support for opacity. That means that the CSS still validates, yet we do have transparency. -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
