285557 - alpha does not work in CSS

Status: VERIFIED DUPLICATE of bug 242609

(Firefox :: General, defect)

Description

[mozillabugzilla]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050223 Firefox/1.0.1
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050223 Firefox/1.0.1

filter:alpha(opacity=50); in a style tag/CSS style block/CSS sheet dosn't work.

it will appear as if the setting was not set.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.use the CSS setting
2.use for example Internet Explorer
3.use FireFox
4.compare

Actual Results:  
no alpha actions were done

Expected Results:  
alpha opacity of half

Comment 1

[Jo Hermans]

That's non-standard code, it only works in IE.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 242609 ***

Comment 2

[mozillabugzilla]

is there a way to have the same result in a work around/alternate way? are there
more proper ways to go about this? will this ever be supported? if so is it a
future or current abaility being worked on? if not what would make the function
be desired? if it's not "officaly" by the "Consortiums/groups" standards like
W3C and WDG it's atleast enough of an important bit and popular to the point
that http://www.w3schools.com/dhtml/dhtml_examples.asp and similar have it. and
if not is there a reason it's not/won't be supported? or a "we hate ms so won't
allow it but once we rename it then it's clean and pure so we can ok it" thing?

is there anythign anywhere along those points of the spectrum of supporting
these abailities?

http://www.google.com/search?q=filter+css3+site%3Alists.w3.org
is littered with ones wanting it. is there code being worked on to support it
but with no actual/official name/usage yet that it's awaiting the finaly
"official" name for it/the related features? from the numerious refrences it
seems like it's going to be in CSS "officialy" eventualy wouldn't it be good to
proactivly have the feature even if down the road it would end up renamed to
conform to the future "standard". from the amount requesting it it does nto seem
like the function being devoloped would go to waste from nobody using it or it
being dropped.

the multiple questions in this reply being that reasons on the other closed ones
this has been linked to are brief with no explination behind reasons or
intentions (future or present) related to these features. (most of the ones
linked are not the same as this either it just looks like a clump of "ms has
this code so we hate it" stuff.)

thanks for reading and any answers would be great :) links to work
arounds/better ways to do it would help :)

(maybe move this all to features?)

Comment 3

[Matthias Versen [:Matti]]

Please don't reopen, this is a dupe and bugzilla is not the place to discuss
such things.


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 242609 ***