W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2005

Re: Gradients in CSS3?

From: Ben Ward <benmward@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:03:00 +0100
Message-ID: <ef5d0f2f05081509037c8fdbe7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Cc: Maniac <Maniac@softwaremaniacs.org>, www-style@w3.org

> In that case, I prefer to just limit the gradients to top-bottom and
> left-right, and not do angles at all. As said, that will probably
> account for 99% of the cases that people would use it anyway.

Mnnnggghh... I think the most basic angles (45 degree) are pretty
desirable. By all means I'm not fussed about anything in between 45
and 90, but those NE, SE, SW, NW diagonals  are very desirable to me
at least.

> - Has using keywords in a 'function' got precedent? It seems odd.
Probably not, but I can't see anything wrong with it. It's an
enumeration, I don't see it being an especially complex concept for
authors to grasp after grasping the concept of functions in the first

>> background-gradient-colors:blue white;
>> background-gradient-direction:ul-br;
>> And use it in a shorthand:
>> gradient:blue white ul-br;
> The advantage of having it as a function is that it doesn't just apply
> to backgrounds, but to borders and colors as well.

I second that. I don't like the property based syntax at all as it's
very cluttered.

> Then why choose? Let's specify gradient-direction both in helpful
> keywords and flexible degrees. Like 'background-position' currently does.


> There's one problem with all this by the way: in most cases, it isn't
> incrementally renderable.

OK, my brain's gone like butter. Could you possibly slap up a quick
example of the problem that I can look at when I get home. I'm pretty
sure I know what you're getting at but would like to be sure! Thanks.
Received on Monday, 15 August 2005 16:03:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:20 UTC