- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 20:39:18 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, "news@terrainformatica.com" <news@terrainformatica.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Nov 8, 2009, at 7:08 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > We can actually be stronger about this - gradient images are infinite > in size (the abstract concept of 'box' used when describing their > rendering has no intrinsic size), I don't think that is an accurate statement. They have no intrinsic size, but 100% in a color-stop would match the width of the background- size for 0deg linear-gradients. That's not infinite size, but is full resolution at any size. > and so background-size and > background-repeat have no effect. Why not? Just because 'cover' and 'contain' and 'auto' end up doing the same thing, doesn't mean all values of 'background-size' are meaningless.
Received on Monday, 9 November 2009 04:40:05 UTC