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

Re: [gradients] basics

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 20:39:18 -0800
Message-Id: <B895761C-E438-4BD0-A50A-9EE075CD36F0@gmail.com>
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 GMT

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