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

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

From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 21:54:04 +0000
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
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: <9710FCC2E88860489239BE0308AC5D17F0239F@TK5EX14MBXC266.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> One of my concerns is that I would not like us to make easy things incomprehensible.
> When I was reviewing Lea Verou's gallery, I was struck by how several of them were
> very hard to understand what was happening, and how they could have been
> simplified and combined with familiar background properties.

Gradients as images provides another building block alternative to url-based bitmap images.  If people choose to combine multiple of them in interesting ways, that's a good thing not a bad thing.

If it was a bad thing, then we shouldn't have introduced layered backgrounds to CSS3.


"I don't like the way author X writes his pages because I want to be able to read them."

Using this argument, we should remove 99% of what CSS offers.

Have you *seen* some of the compression and obfuscation that goes on in script libraries?


If you can write them in a simpler (and often less flexible) way, that's great.  But it's not a good reason to remove capabilities.

Look at the Acid test example.  They go through all kinds of gyrations to draw a smiley face.  Should we remove all the facilities that "overcomplicate" the way they choose to accomplish that task?
Received on Monday, 10 October 2011 21:54:35 GMT

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