W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2009

Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2009-08-12

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:26:06 -0700
Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <F89908CE-2099-49D2-8D17-8752BD971194@apple.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org

On Aug 13, 2009, at 1:08 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:

> That seems far more complicated than what we currently have. By  
> writing it as a 'gradient' rule you don't benefit background-clip,  
> background-position, background-repeat, multiple backgrounds, and  
> falling back to a background image. It's not extensible to other  
> kinds of gradients, and doesn't handle repeating gradients. And even  
> so,
>
> { gradient: white #666 -90deg; }
>
> and
>
> { gradient: #ffffff 0%, #666666 100% 270deg; }
>
> seem much less clear than
> background: linear-gradient(top, white, bottom, #666);
> or even
> background: linear-gradient(top, bottom, from(white), to(#666);

I agree, the background form of the rule is more clear, integrates  
better with existing functionality, and has more potential to be  
reused in other contexts. I especially like the balance of clarity and  
lack of verbosity in the first linear-gradient version above.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 19:26:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:20 GMT