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

RE: [css3-images] simplifying radial gradients

From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 19:27:24 +0000
To: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9710FCC2E88860489239BE0308AC5D17EFD8F9@TK5EX14MBXC266.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Brad is advocating removing functionality "to simplify".  It might be useful and productive if he amended his proposal such that it *retained* the existing functionality while simplifying.

I believe Alan is requesting some additional functionality to allow more flavors of linear / radial marrying in a way that is flexible across aspect ratios of the box, but I must confess I haven't looked at his examples yet to see if there are existing "almost what he wants, and good enough for CSS3 (in WG opinion)" ways to cover the use cases he has in mind.


The current feature set is both rich enough and not too rich.  Other than  Brad's "let's gut it" approach to radial-gradient and Alan's "I'm chiming in because someone raised the Last Call flag" the community has been relatively silent on CSS Gradients (in Images) for a 2-3 weeks now.  This is after several months of having discussion on Gradients *every week*.  Whether this indicates silent assent, ignoring the topic for other priorities, or passive aggression is anyone's guess.

Tab rejected Brad's proposal, after discussing it in depth, and elaborated on his conclusions.
[Here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Sep/0562.html ]

[Initially here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Aug/0389.html ]
I've also disagreed with Brad's proposal because I believe it represents a step backwards in functionality -- relative to the initial addition of gradients to the images module as well as the prefixed implementation capabilities seen prior to the CSS proposals.  Some of the capabilities removed via this proposal are NOT achievable via CSS, even with the help of SVG.

> It might
> help if more WG members who are generally familiar with the radial
> gradients spec can read and consider my in-list comments, and comment
> back on them

I agree that such commentary would be useful.  I don't agree that we should hold LC for it.

Regarding Alan's proposal...

My gut reaction is that this is a great topic to consider for CSS4, but it's beyond the scope of what the WG was trying to achieve for CSS3 gradients.  My gut's been wrong before though, especially around lunch time.

-----Original Message-----
From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alan Gresley
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 9:24 AM
To: Brad Kemper
Cc: Chris Lilley; www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: [css3-images] simplifying radial gradients

On 7/10/2011 2:50 AM, Brad Kemper wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2011, at 9:19 AM, Chris Lilley wrote:
>> Hello Brad,
>> On todays call, the CSS WG considered whether to move css3 images
>> to Last Call, and noted that you have a proposal relating to radial
>> gradients.
>> We would prefer that you either resolve this issue within two
>> weeks, or alternatively agree that we can move forward and re-raise
>> the issue during Last Call if you are not satisfied.
>> Are those options acceptable to you?
> I would love to resolve within two weeks. Unfortunately, when the
> main person I need to resolve it with has said "I've decided to
> reject [Brad's] proposal for simplifying radial gradients", and
> doesn't suggest any alternatives to the problem (or acknowledge the
> problem), it makes it tough to try to work out a resolution that is
> satisfactory to all (or even good enough to most). I don't feel it
> was nearly as widely reviewed as linear-gradient was, and so far the
> only ones to consider my complaints (and say anything on the list)
> were Tab (the author of this part of the spec) and Brian (an
> implementor who probably feels that the large effort he contributed
> to implement radial-gradient in IE10 should not be wasted). It might
> help if more WG members who are generally familiar with the radial
> gradients spec can read and consider my in-list comments, and comment
> back on them (agree that they are valid points, or tell me that I am
> off my rocker).

I agree with many aspects of your proposal. I have done many test with 
using background-size and background-position with radial-gradient. I 
also agree with some of the comments that Brian has added (ei. repeating 
halves of radial-gradient).

Others concerns I have is that the way the spec stands now, using both 
linear-gradient and radial-gradient together are not easy.


When magic corners work, this technique will only work with boxes of the 
same height and width.

I have many offline test with gradients but many need to be deleted. I 
will drop my desire for premultiplied gradients (yes i said it) so I can 
contribute to something good.

Alan Gresley
Received on Thursday, 6 October 2011 19:27:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:51 UTC