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

Re: [gradients] basics

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:31:12 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad1003161731l679e336bgd0b6c392859c87e4@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com> wrote:
> Regarding the discussion of infinitely-sized gradients and image values vs.
> color values, Brad Kemper wrote on Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:49:05 -0800:
>
>> On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:28 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Now we come to background-repeat.  You're correct that this is the
>>> right place to make a gradient extend out of that box, because this
>>> property actually transforms finite-size images *into* infinite-size
>>> ones.  An image with background-repeat:repeat goes on forever in both
>>> dimensions, and no longer has edges, just like gradients.  So adding
>>> another value to this property, 'extend', which removes the visual
>>> clipping from naturally-infinite images is good and proper.  Just like
>>> a repeated background, the 'size' of the image is still the same as it
>>> would be without the repeating.
>
> .
>>>
>>> If so, then I'll change
>>> Images to explain this, and B&B'll need the new value added to
>>> background-repeat.  No other changes should be necessary.
>>
>> I'm not sure if B&B needs to be changed (or held up), or if this can just
>> be a gradients-
>> dependant addendum that lives in the gradients spec.
>
> Did you conclude on this topic? I see no related spec changes in either
> module yet... [1,2]
>
> 1. http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#gradients-
> 2. http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background/#the-background-repeat

No, I haven't.  I've been a bad module editor for the past two months
or so.  However, I had been thinking about this precise topic and
wanting to wrap it up last week, so thank you for bringing it up for
me!

I'll ask to add this to the telcon agenda this week.  I think it's a
relatively simple addition, but also a necessary one for all this to
act coherently (as the behavior of FF currently is either wrong or
undefined).

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 17 March 2010 00:32:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:25 GMT