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

RE: [css3-images] Resolving on gradient issues

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 05:34:10 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F017829313814@TK5EX14MBXC296.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

[Tab Atkins Jr.:]
 
> I've finished the CSS3 Images edits that came from f2f decisions today.
> In particular, I've made the following substantive changes:
> 
> 1. Changed the handling of too-small repeating gradients to render as the
> average color.
> 
> 2. Marked the element() function and object-* properties as at-risk.
> 
> 3. Kicked the image() and cross-fade() functions, the image-* properties,
> and the serialization and interpolation sections to a placeholder Level 4
> document.
> 
> 4. Switched the linear gradient keywords to upward, etc.
> 
> 1-3 are covered by WG resolutions (or at least WG agreement).  4 was not,
> because we wanted to close out the discussion instead of resolving on it
> immediately.  Related to #4 is the only remaining substantive issue in the
> draft, revolving around how to specify repeating gradients.
> 
> Can we resolve on these issues, so I can finish some editorial cleanup and
> publish an LC draft?

I think you want to resolve 4 so as to publish an updated WD, then move to LC.
It would seem odd to go from ED to LC directly.
 
> My preferred outcome for the linear-gradient keywords is to have them
> remain as they are.  

'As they are', meaning as in this latest version ? Well, yeah, that is what
you're proposing :) Or are you saying you'd rather keep keywords vs. dropping
the ability to use them to set the gradient direction ?

> There is more possibility-space to explore here in
> the realm of linear gradients, as recently pointed out by Behnam Esfahbod
> in the "Gradient Magic" thread, and I would like to address that in Image
> Values 4 with more time to put proper thought into the matter.  The
> current angle-based syntax is sufficient for a large majority of linear
> gradients, and I have left space open for us to extend linear-gradient in
> the future.
> 
> My preferred outcome for the method to obtain repeating gradients is also
> to have them remain as they are.  The method proposed for triggering
> repeating behavior (namely, making the repeat* values of background-repeat
> imply a repeating gradient) is bad in my opinion.
> The repeat keywords currently work by directly repeating the rectangle
> that the image is sized in, and I don't think it's a good idea to change
> them to activating image-format-specific alternate modes of repeating.
> 
> ~TJ
> 

Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2011 05:34:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:43 GMT