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

Re: Colour gradient backgrounds.

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@iinet.net.au>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 16:24:01 +1000
Message-ID: <40A70901.7030103@iinet.net.au>
To: W3C Style List <www-style@w3.org>

Ernest Cline wrote:

> 
>>[Original Message]
>>From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@iinet.net.au>
>>   Lack of support for an existing standard, such as SVG, which can 
>>already produce the desired effects, is no reason start filling in the 
>>gaps in CSS, using new properties which will also take quite some
>>time to get widely implemented.
> 
> 
> Just to make it clear, the reason I have for wanting CSS gradients
> is not as a stopgap until SVG is widely implemented, but as
> something that would be useful even in environments where SVG
> will never be implemented.

   Yes, but would the extra complication of adding such properties to
CSS be worth it for UAs that can support SVG, considering that it
*shouldn't* be a big loss if a solid colour, or even a fallback image
was presented, rather than a gradient in UAs that don't support SVG?

   I'm all for adding new types of colour properties and values to CSS,
but not at the expense of crossing *too far* into the realm of images.
For example, I have been thinking about for a while, but not yet
proposed, adding properties to do bitwise (NOT, OR, XOR and AND)
operations between colours and backgrounds which wouldn't use up much
processing power at all, but haven't had time to write up a full
proposal.  Maybe later this week I'll get around to it.

> There is also a minor problem, in that 'color' would have multiple
> shortcut properties ('font' and 'foreground') that would reference it,
> a difficulty that so far has only affected border properties.

   The 'font' shorthand property doesn't reference 'color' in any
version of CSS, and AFAIK, there is no shorthand property that currently
references 'color'.

PS. This isn't really related to this thread, but I noticed that, in
CSS3, 'font' no longer has 'inherit' in the list of values, whereas it
did in CSS2 and 2.1.  Was that intentional, or was it just missed?

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
Received on Sunday, 16 May 2004 02:24:22 GMT

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