- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 23:36:34 -0700
- To: <ernestcline@mindspring.com>, "W3C CSS List" <www-style@w3.org>
> Rectangular gradients make little sense for borders and absolutely > no sense for outlines. What is the "outline" here? Isn't it a border? Anyway.... If you wish to have gradients on borders it is well better to use something a la: border-color-gradient=gradient(color,color,color,color) as this will also apply to rounded corners (If we will have them...) And about this famous O(n^2)... To build a linear gradient bitmap you need three (four) integer increments + three (four) integer comparisons per point. (My guess) I don't think that it is a big deal for any device these days to do such math. Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.com > > I would suggest to use four separate corner colors instead of two > > colors and direction specification. > > > > background-gradient=gradient(color1,color2,color3,color4); > > > > Don't need to specify rotation or angle in this case. Already there. > > And it's easy. > > Easy to specify, but not easy to compute. It's not difficult to compute > either in my opinion. When dealing with graphics anything that for > an n by n picture is O(n^2) is average, less than that is easy, and > worse than that is hard in my opinion. But my objection to rectangular > gradients has little to do with their computation complexity (which is > only worse by a scaling factor than a freely rotated linear gradient) > but primarily with their lack of general applicability. > > Rectangular gradients make little sense for borders and absolutely > no sense for outlines. If gradients should be added to CSS at all, > it should be done in a way that mixes well with all color properties, > not just some of them. I don't want to special case the foreground > and background by having rectangular gradients apply to them > but not to the border and outline. > > If you can point out a sensible way to apply rectangular gradients > to borders and outlines and still get the same effect as this proposal > does, then I'd be for it, but I just don't see it. > >
Received on Friday, 14 May 2004 02:37:20 UTC