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

Re: Repeating gradient syntax question

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 09:04:33 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTin2AAZRGAAeFqKM6pZuuTwci+TLpwcdjEVO7q22@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fraser Pearce <me@fraserpearce.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Fraser Pearce <me@fraserpearce.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> In reading the syntax I can't help but feel the way the repeated gradients
> work is still a bit long winded and seeminly duplicitive of the non repeat.
> I can think of two other, potentially better, ways of writing it in CSS that
> would be simpler and clearer.
>
> My preferred method would simply to have a repeat keyword in the syntax, so
> the following:
> -webkit-repeating-linear-gradient(left, red, green, blue)
>
> Would be written:
> -webkit-linear-gradient(left, red, green, blue, repeat)

I don't see any particular benefit in moving the string "repeat" from
the function name to the last argument.


> The other option would be to observe the background-repeat value instead,
> seeing as ultimately these gradients are generated background images… but in
> this option I can't help but think I'm missing taking into account some kind
> of effect you wouldn't be able to do this way.

This suggestion has been given before (as you see in Brad's reply).  I
don't think it's a good idea.  It changes the meaning of the repeat
keywords (now, rather than tiling an image, they magically interact
with the image and otherwise act like no-repeat), and it ties this
behavior unnecessarily into a single usage.


Sorry for rejecting all your feedback.  ^_^  Thanks for taking the
time to send it in, though!

~TJ
Received on Monday, 7 February 2011 17:05:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:37 GMT