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

Re: Repeating gradient syntax question

From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:05:08 -0800
Cc: Fraser Pearce <me@fraserpearce.com>, www-style@w3.org
Message-id: <2564096A-124A-4EF0-99D3-0D7256A99D2E@me.com>
To: Antony Kennedy <antony@silversquid.com>
On Feb 7, 2011, at 5:38 AM, Antony Kennedy wrote:

> This certainly feels a lot friendlier and less verbose to me. 

In earlier discussion on this list, I argued for using different gradient functions for things which cannot be interpolated for animation. That's why we have the 'repeating' versions of the gradient functions.

Simon

> 
> On 24 Jan 2011, at 21:15, Fraser Pearce 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)
>> 
>>  
>> 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.
>> 
Received on Monday, 7 February 2011 19:05:45 GMT

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