W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2004

Re: Colour gradient backgrounds and CSS textures

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 16:30:20 -0700
Message-ID: <004901c43879$1815b2d0$1902000a@AFedoniouk>
To: <ernestcline@mindspring.com>, "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>

> There is one thing I think we can agree on tho.  Adding gradients
> to CSS by extending the <color> value type would be a bad idea.

Don't need to extend color. Color value is just RGB[A]

If you can write short form:

margin: 1px 2px 3px 4px;

why not then:

background-color: magenta blue blue red red;

as a short form of background-color-top-left, background-color-top-right ...

?

UAs which will do not support gradients will take 'magenta' as a background
color.

I really don't understand. Some aesthetic reasons?

Andrew Fedoniouk / KISS follower.
http://terrainformatica.com


>
>
>  From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
> >
> > On Wednesday, May 12, 2004, 10:06:24 PM, Ernest wrote:
> >
> >
> > EC> Rectangular gradients do not make sense for several
> > EC> properties that do use <color>.  I may spend some time
> > EC> this weekend to come up with a fairly detailed gradient
> > EC> proposal.
> >
> > Once you are done reinventing SVG, we can then see how
> > detailed it was.
>
> Reinventing SVG is not my intention.
>
> I don't intend on proposing supporting arbitrary shapes or anything
> beyond a simple linear gradient.  No scripting or animation.  Stops
> only at what SVG would consider the beginning and the end. SVG is
> a tool to use for complex stuff, but I'm talking about simple stuff that
> won't require a full implementation of SVG to handle.
>
> Mega "let's implement every W3C standard" applications might be
> nice in the abstract, but a pain in the rear to program, and usually
> more than is what is needed.  If that's the only thing worth implementing,
> then why doesn't the W3C just go ahead and combine everything into
> XLML (Xtra-Large Markup Language)?  There are a ton of applications
> for which SVG is just simply much more than what is needed.  Basic
> gradient patterns are simple to implement, simple to specify and are
> clearly an aspect of styling that is being used on the web today
> usually with non-scaled background images which is hardly
> great.  scaled background images would be a minor improvement
> but will generally require a separate fetch  (Files representing smooth
> gradients would for most uses be too large to work with data:URL's.)
>
> When I said detailed, I meant that rather than a plain vanilla
> description it would be something that could actually be examined
> with full implementation guidelines, not that it would be anywhere as
> complicated as even SVG Print Tiny.
>
> Gradients are certainly far less complicated than the 'border-mage-*'
> properties in the CSS3 Borders WD to both implement and understand.
> Now getting CSS to drop those in favor of using SVG and ::outside
>   e::outside{background-image:url("example.svg")}
> would be a good idea.  The ::outside pseudo-element from the
> generated content module is well suited for building up complicated
> borders and in this case would be able to do it with one image rather
> than the eight that CSS currently contemplates.
>
> There is one thing I think we can agree on tho.  Adding gradients
> to CSS by extending the <color> value type would be a bad idea.
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2004 19:31:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:30 GMT