- From: Justin Wood <jw6057@bacon.qcc.mass.edu>
- Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:57:44 -0400
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, W3C Style List <www-style@w3.org>
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >* Chris Lilley wrote: > > >>BH> it'd be nice to be able to work with gradients for >>BH> box-model backgrounds. >> >>Yes, it would. For this, the backgrounds model needs to offer the >>ability to stretch an image, as an alternative to tiling it. (It already >>offers this in CSS3). >> >>Then, an SVG image can be used to create a gradient as a background. >>Replicating SVG functionality into CSS3 would be a bad direction. >> >> > >Maybe it is just me, but I dislike the idea to create about six SVG >documents for a site like <http://www.blogger.com/start> and depend >on SVG support in background-images in the client, maintain all the >style sheets (e.g., creating a different set of about six images to >use them for an alternate style sheet) rather than adding few lines >to the style sheet, just because CSS syntax for gradients would be >a "bad direction", so, could you be more specific why it would be >bad if web authors could use gradients for their web site using CSS >and XHTML only? I fail to see how a CSS syntax for gradients could >do any harm, other than maybe less demand for SVG support in XHTML+ >CSS user agents. > > > > Because it then would make CSS be more like an "image design" language, than simple stylistic language, you could also do it in png, gif, et-all...but SVG is most diverse, and chances are a more simplistic UA which does not implement SVG would not be as fast to implement a feature from SVG ported to CSS just because someone in CSS wanted it. all imo We have been over this descussion many times, perhaps someone would be so kind as to post links to start of threads? ~Justin Wood
Received on Wednesday, 11 August 2004 20:59:07 UTC