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

Re: [css3-images] simplifying radial gradients - Lea Verou gallery

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 16:00:30 -0700
Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DED9A791-8C97-48B0-98D3-70E887721DE7@gmail.com>
To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>

On Oct 8, 2011, at 2:11 AM, Brian Manthos wrote:

> You are incorrect.  Your proposal doesn't *directly* support *in gradients* the expressed capabilities.  Gradients are supported as a flavor of <image> which is exposed by CSS3 Images more broadly than just backgrounds.  As such, using background properties to simulate behavior is an apples to oranges comparison.

It has always been my contention that <bg-position> inside the gradient is mostly redundant to using background-position, because the vast majority of use cases and needs for radial gradients are within backgrounds. The fact that you could also conceivably use them as bullet points or carefully constructed border images is almost (not quite, but almost) incidental, and doesn't demonstrate a need for extra complexity for that limited extra use. If we are optimizing for a particular use case, it should be for use in backgrounds.

> If you'd like to propose that [1] we remove "gradients as <image>" and [2] add back "gradients as part of the background-image grammar", we can have that discussion.  But I haven't yet heard that proposed.

No one is proposing that. The simple and still powerful way to include them in backgrounds is to take advantage of the existing background properties for positioning and sizing and repeating an image, and to have the gradient function stand in place of the url function. That is what we have, and we don't need to repeat all background functionality within the image itself. 

If we follow your logic to its extreme (as you did when you demonstrated how to get more extreme in simplifying [1]), then we should also put <bg-repeat>, <bg-attachment>, and multi-gradient layering within the image, in case some authors want to include even more background-like power in their list images. Or in case if someone wants to include their logo in front of a gradient in their list image, we could add a <bg-image> parameter too. The line between power on one end and simplicity on the other has to be drawn somewhere. I would just drawing it closer to simplicity for CSS gradients than you would.

> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brad Kemper [mailto:brad.kemper@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 1:00 AM
>> To: Brian Manthos
>> Cc: Sylvain Galineau; Alan Gresley; L. David Baron; www-style@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: [css3-images] simplifying radial gradients - Lea Verou
>> gallery
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Oct 7, 2011, at 4:00 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Exactly 50% of the radial gradients usage in Lea's page aren't
>> directly supported by Brad's proposal.
>> 
>> That's not right. You are including everything with bg-position in it,
>> including those where an actual <background-position> would work just
>> as well or better.
> 
> 

1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Oct/0288.html
Received on Saturday, 8 October 2011 23:01:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:45 GMT