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

Re: [gradients] basics

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:43:05 -0800
Message-ID: <4AF71139.2030901@terrainformatica.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:
>> The current gradient proposals address the application of gradients to CSS images. This is not to say that these are the only types of gradients we would ever want in CSS; you could imagine border gradients, outline gradients, and perhaps even shadow gradients. But these would be separate properties, or new values for existing properties, which I don't believe would conflict with the current proposal.
> 
> Indeed.  There is no reason to assume that we'll never address the use
> of generalized brushes in CSS, but that does *not* mean that the color
> property is the best place to do so.  It isn't.  Colors are
> intrinsically simpler than images - they have no dimension or
> direction.  Gradients have both, because they're images.

*A color* as a concept has no dimension, yes.

But we are speaking here about the 'background-color' which, as
its name stands, defines [distribution of] color inside
background box.

The same apply to other color attributes in CSS they always have
"dimensions".

And on "There is no reason to assume that we'll never address the use
of generalized brushes in CSS".

Why not to think a bit upfront now?

---

In any case I think that these two lines:

background: linear-gradient(magenta yellow) url(...)
background: url(...) linear-gradient(magenta yellow)

shall produce the same result. In the same way as:

background: magenta url(...)
background: url(...) magenta



-- 
Andrew Fedoniouk.

http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Sunday, 8 November 2009 18:43:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:22 GMT