Re: [Proposal] CSS gradients

On Dec 12, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Erik Dahlstrom wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 10:26:58 +0100, John Oyler  
> <> wrote:
>> On Dec 8, 2007, at 5:05 PM, fantasai wrote:
>>> Charles A. Landemaine wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>> Here's my proposal for the next specifications of CSS:
>>>> We could style elements using scalable gradients using fixed and
>>>> variable units. For instance ...
>>>> I have uploaded an example for you to see better:
>>>> I hope you like the idea.
>>> Hiya Charles,
>>> I think we'll probably leave the gradient definitions with SVG:
>>> you can use an SVG image to define the gradients (which gives you
>>> a lot more flexibility than we could ever reasonably define in
>>> CSS) and position it using the CSS3 Backgrounds and Borders
>>> properties:
>> SVG isn't appropriate in some instances. My understanding is that  
>> SVG is for actual images, or at least elements of them (a curve or  
>> shape).
>> We're just talking about background colors here, but more than one  
>> of them. Even with the data uri, they'd be messy just for a  
>> gradient, and with an external uri to an svg file we're talking  
>> another http get for something that's purely style.
> Not if you use relative uri:s which point to svg elements that are  
> part of the document you're styling.

That still seems much more complicated for when you want to just add  
a simple gradient to an element in a style sheet that is used by  
possibly hundreds of HTML documents (assuming that by "document" you  
mean HTML document and not CSS file). I really like the idea of a  
very simple syntax that could be used as a substitute for color.  
Especially, if it had some default values, so I could right something  
like this (with 0% and 100% implied by the order, and linear as a  

background-color:gradient(90deg, rgba(0,0,255,0.5), transparent)

While I can see how using SVG would be useful in some cases to  
accomplish similar types of things, I would hate to have to reference  
a separate list of gradients in a separate file every time I wanted  
to add a single gradient to a rule in my style sheet.

> Unlike this proposal, I'd roll all the various parameters into the  
> gradient() function though. Something like:
> gradient(linear, #000, x1, y1, #777, x2, y2, #999, d1, #fff, d2 ...)
> Where the first color is for the first XY pair, the second color is  
> for the second XY pair (this gives direction), and every subsequent  
> color/d# is a distance and color combo. Variations could be worked  
> up for radial and other types of gradients.

To me, using x/y coordinates for the first two stops and then  
distances for the remaining stops seems cumbersome. I would much  
rather see angles indicated by degrees, as that is how I tend to  
think of them (especially with typical 45 or 90 degree increments),  
and is typically how they are specified in other applications (such  
as PhotoShop). What if it were more like the following, with the word  
"linear" optional for linear gradients, and the distance measures  
only required if there were not just 0% to 100%:

gradient(linear, 90deg, #000 20px, #777 10%, #999 50%, #fff 60% ...)

I'm not sure if you'd want to mix pixels with percentages like that,  
although I could see that doing so might be useful. If you wanted the  
angle to be dependant on the box size, then maybe you have some  
optional key words to replace the angle measurement:

gradient(linear, bottom-left to top-right, #000 20px, #777 10%, #999  
50%, #fff 60% ...)

Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 17:49:35 UTC