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

[css3-images] Resolving on gradient issues, mark 2

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 15:46:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDJYP8TvXZTob6v7sxYHqF=YbiG0-yJ+OnbfDMbjOLY_w@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
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 (further discussion on these are
happening on different threads).  4 was not, because we wanted to
close out the discussion instead of resolving on it immediately.
Related to #4 (in that it's about gradients) 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
be done with this level?

My preferred outcome for the linear-gradient keywords is to have them
remain as they are.  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 in the spec
issue 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 22:47:01 GMT

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