4 ms·
It's amusing, although I'm lost with their proposal of "transparency" over "opacity", since they are opposites and, as far as I know, used on both sides of the
by ezequiel-garzon 14y ago
It's amusing, although I'm lost with their proposal of "transparency" over "opacity", since they are opposites and, as far as I know, used on both sides of the Atlantic. Also obtaining the transparency would require applying the transformation x -> 1-x to the opacity.
I feel I'm missing something with this example.
- MattBearman 14y agoAs a Brit I concur with you good sir. We use both words (transparency and opacity) this side of the Atlantic. And as you say, "transparency: 0.2;" would equal "opacity: 0.8;"