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

Re: Gradients in CSS3?

From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:43:39 +0200
Message-ID: <43010C8B.9010701@students.cs.uu.nl>
To: Slalomsk8er <slalomsk8er@solnet.ch>
CC: www-style@w3.org

Slalomsk8er wrote:
> I don't think this is needed as the background-colors default is
> |transparent so it will look like a "normal" box but if you are a
> webmaster and do a gradient not from or to transparent, then I hope you
> did set a |background-color like Ben wrote. But where is the problem? As
> long as the content can be read and the page does not look like in a
> candyshop (this can happen with background-color-gradient-to:) it does
> not bother me.
> With background-color: blue; background-color-gradient-to: top-bottom
> red; how can I get it to look clean (background-color: |transparent;|)
> if the browser fails know the gradient? It is a design nightmare if the
> background-color is always part of the gradient!
Hmm, well ok I guess. It was just a thought :). I don’t really believe 
just letting the CSS spec or common sense ‘require’ a fallback to be 
specified will be sufficient, so that’s why I was looking for something 
more ‘automatic’. After all, look how many websites specify foreground 
colours without specifying background colours (assuming the browser’s 
default white one)?

Emrah BASKAYA wrote:
>> background-color-gradient-to: top-bottom red;
> I still prefer the degree solution, which I have detailed (and no-one  
> seems to be bothered with it!) 
Of course the ‘top-bottom’ keyword can be replaced with 90deg or 

I saw the image (cool), didn’t notice the actual text on it though :). 
Anyways, I think it kinda looks similar to gradient() mentioned earlier, 
doesn’t it?



Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!!
Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.
Received on Monday, 15 August 2005 21:44:00 UTC

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