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 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:41 UTC