W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2011

RE: [css3-images] gradient sizing for GC?

From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 02:24:29 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FA122FEC823D524CB516E4E0374D9DCF19CC0197@TK5EX14MBXC132.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > I didn't find any guidance from the specs on image size for gradients when
> used as GC.  Is there any?
> >
> > Chrome 10 basically makes them the size of the entire window, which is
> undesirable IMO.  Firefox, Opera, and Safari don't appear to support it yet.
> It's possibly defined in Images, depending on how images referenced in the
> 'content' property are defined.  Unfortunately, 'content' is underdefined
> here.
> An image used alongside other content (like "content: url(foo)
> 'bar';") should clearly be treated like an anonymous inline replaced element.
> Image Values defines the default object size of replaced elements to be
> 300px by 150px, though this may not match reality.
> An image used as the sole value of 'content' should, imo, turn the element
> itself into a replaced element, rather than just filling it with an anonymous
> replaced element.  In that case, the size of the image is taken from the size
> of the element, if specified.  If not specified, presumably it should use the
> same sizing algorithm with the 300px by 150px default size?
> ~TJ

Thanks.  I'll mull that over and get back to you when I have more to ask or offer.

Received on Friday, 15 April 2011 02:24:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:45 UTC