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

Re: [css3-images] simplifying radial gradients

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:54:27 -0700
Message-Id: <A4197C4E-567D-4F43-B8C0-F5A5BF622695@gmail.com>
Cc: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
I said 'linear' when I really meant 'radial' there. Maybe that's why I don't understand your answer. 

On Oct 12, 2011, at 2:27 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't see how. I am giving 'linear-gradient()' equal standing to 'url()'. CSS does not include ways for BMP/JPG/PNG images to be cropped, moved, and sized within 'url()', So why does radial-gradient have to have ghat?
> 
> Linear gradients have the advantage that, no matter what size and
> position you choose for the gradient-line, you can construct a
> gradient with identical appearance that has the gradient-line defined
> as the draft does (centered in the box, with endpoints placed in a
> particular way).  Radials don't have that.
> 
> ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2011 16:55:03 GMT

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