- From: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:14:11 +0000
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Cc: "Brad Kemper" <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CE0D169C87ED49D9BC2D22BC43794E0E@FREMYCOMPANY>
BTW, I had thought <gradient> would be a possible value for <image>. Why do we now need for additional 'gradient' property ? By adding <gradient> as a possible <image> value, we could simply use background whithout requiring any change in the CSS 'background' property. <gradient> would be a flexible image that 'streches' the zone where the image is drawn. It's maybe the only thing that's different with a normal image (because that image would have a defined size). From: François REMY Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:53 PM To: Tab Atkins Jr. ; robert@ocallahan.org Cc: Brad Kemper ; fantasai ; www-style@w3.org Subject: Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2009-08-12 From: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Robert O'Callahan<robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: >> That seems far more complicated than what we currently have. By writing it >> as a 'gradient' rule you don't benefit background-clip, background-position, >> background-repeat, multiple backgrounds, and falling back to a background >> image. It's not extensible to other kinds of gradients, and doesn't handle >> repeating gradients. And even so, > > Agreed - it should stay as a functional notation denoting an image > that just happens to be constructed by the browser. > > As to the actual syntax: > > I think the major loss of the current syntax is the functional > notation of the colors. It's a large gain in complexity, increases > the chance of an accidental mistake, and gains us nearly nothing from > what I can tell. > > The vast majority of gradients will, I believe, be simple 2-color > fades. As such, requiring someone to write "from(white),to(black)" is > almost criminal when they could just write "white,black" or even > "white black". +1 > More complex gradients are also overcomplexified. The vast majority > of complex gradients will be simple n-color fades, going from one to > the next in turn. Again, it's criminal to then make someone write > "from(white),color-stop(50%,orange),to(black)" when they could just > say "white orange black". What do you think of a syntax like : gradient: <gradienttype> [<gradientcolors>]? <gradienttype> : <linear> | <radial> | <square> | ... <linear> : linear\(<point>,(<point> | <angle>)\) // The first point is 'from' and second is 'to', if the second argument is an angle <radial> : radial\(<point>,<point>\) // First point is 'center of the radial' and second is a point of the 100% circle ... <point> : (top | bottom)? <length>? (left | right)? <length>? // top left is by default;top 10% right 5% is the point located at 10% of the top and 5% of the end of the gradient image <lenght> : Or should it be <percentage> ? <gradientcolors> : <color>, [<length> <color>, ]* <color> // First is always at 0%, last at 100% Sample : gradient: radial(left, right) white, 50% #ddd, black; Would produce : Sample : gradient: linear(top left, bottom right) white, black; Would produce : A simple linear diagonal gradient from white to black; Sample : gradient: linear(left 50%, right) black, white; Would produce : Regards, François
Attachments
Received on Friday, 21 August 2009 08:41:17 UTC