On 7 Feb 2011, at 21:45, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Sebastian Klein <[email protected]> > wrote: >> There are certain advantages to have opacity as an extra property. If you >> like to modify an existing default style and, e.g. make all filled areas >> transparent, this could be done like this: >> >> area { >> fill-opacity: 0.2; >> } > > I agree with this. I think that including opacity in a colour > specifier is the type of "leaky abstraction" that Thomas was arguing > against earlier: it is not at all intuitive to someone who doesn't > work in computer graphics that opacity is a "a colour". > > We could possibly allow it as a fourth colour element as a short hand: > rgb(50,100,150); opacity:0.5; == rgba(50,100,150,0.5); > > But honestly I think that introduces complexity with little payoff. > > Btw Thomas sorry if it sounds like we're all against you or something > - I'm certainly not, so please do bring up other suggestions for > discussion.
Not at all, the point of bringing this up was mostly to find out what the other concerns are. In this particular case though I would love it if rgb(...) used the same scale as opacity. Thanks Tom Davie _______________________________________________ Mapcss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/mapcss
