W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2010

Re: [css3-images] Repeating oblique gradients

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 13:03:11 -0800
Message-Id: <BD3F5AD9-3212-4572-A193-981776E06B02@gmail.com>
Cc: Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On Dec 1, 2010, at 10:22 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

>> You said resizing the image is irrelevant to the discussion about filling
>> the background (or perhaps about tiling too, as I had talked about in the
>> part you quoted). I defended why I had brought it up: because it lets you
>> see several tiles at once (if tiling), or the area outside the image (if
>> not). Thus, you can't just pretend that tiling gradient images in
>> backgrounds won't exist. When combined with 'background-size', it is a
>> rather obvious way to get repeating gradients.
> 
> I claim it's irrelevant because, well, it is.  ^_^  Gradients are
> finite-sized regardless of the value you give to background-size, and
> thus the interaction between gradients and tiling/etc is always
> present.  You seemed to be stating that setting background-size to a
> non-default value changes things somehow, which is incorrect.

I am not making that claim. I only mention sizing because it is relevant to authors who want to see if the background is extending or not, or if the tiles are tiling (although 'background-position could also let them see the tiling too). Something that goes hand in hand with what we're talking about is not irrelevant to the discussion. 
Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2010 21:03:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:34 GMT