[Mapcss] Proposal: Drop css's ugly colour specifications

Thomas Davie tom.davie at gmail.com
Mon Feb 7 22:26:35 GMT 2011


On 7 Feb 2011, at 21:45, Steve Bennett wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Sebastian Klein <bastikln at googlemail.com> 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


More information about the Mapcss mailing list