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

Re: [gradients] basics

From: Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 22:54:05 -0600
Message-ID: <ab96c3ef0911082054u790af77cv4d9c98e8207740ee@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, "news@terrainformatica.com" <news@terrainformatica.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

Right, but I think his point is just that a color is still defined for
any point beyond the final color-stop, even if it's not displayed.
Even with a finite extent/color-stop box, the gradient itself *could*
cover an infinite plane with color.

However, if a gradient is a generated image, it makes sense to respect
background-size as the canvas (so to speak) that the gradient is drawn
on. That seems to be what most people here had already assumed would
happen. Would percentage-type values for end points scale with
background-size, then?
Received on Monday, 9 November 2009 04:54:39 GMT

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