Re: [css3-multicol] [css3-grid] and other layout managers

Brad Kemper wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2007, at 7:45 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>> Think about this: we almost near to have five different background 
>> drawing methods: nothing(transparent background), solid color, 
>> gradient, image(that has 5 or so sub methods) and the border-image thing.
>> At least last three conflict with each other.
>> Say you have gradient and image defined for the same element. 
>> Whichever wins? They have to be mutually exclusive.
> This one point is not completely true. A background image does not 
> always repeat, and it is not always 100% opaque. Both GIF and PNG allow 
> transparent portions to show the solid color fill (background-color) 
> behind them. I would expect a gradient to show through the those areas 
> of the image and the areas not covered by the image in the same way.
>> Otherwise redefining solid background color for some element requires 
>> explicit disabling of all other background attributes like images and 
>> gradients. 
> It sounds like you are suggesting to have the 5 methods you mentioned by 
> all mutually exclusive. But I would prefer to be able to combine solid 
> with background-image, as we can today. Gradients could be combined with 
> background-image in the same way. 

Well, it was just thoughts aloud. Sample with background is probably not 
the best one as, indeed, background image can be combined with solid and 
gradient fills.

But again solid and gradient fills are different types of fill method.

background-fill: solid { color:#ddd; } - mapped on background-color
background-fill: gradient-linear { start:...; end:...; stops:...; }
background-fill: gradient-radial { start:...; end:...; stops:...; }
background-fill: gradient-diamond { a:...; b:...; c:...; }
background-fill: fractal-plasma { color:...; }
background-fill: fractal-cloud { :...; }

And these are mutually exclusive, isn't it?

> Disabling the image is only necessary if you no longer want the image on 
> top of your solid or blended color, so I have no problem with the way 
> that is already done. 

background-image is by itself an example of various types of rendering 
methods where each method may use their own set of sub attributes

background-image: repeat {  ... }
background-image: repeat-x {  ... }
background-image: repeat-y {  ... }
background-image: no-repeat {  ... }
background-image: expand {  ... }
background-image: stretch {  ... }

> In regards to disabling a gradient to show a solid color, this becomes a 
> moot point if the gradient is used as a color value. There is probably 
> no need to have a gradient with translucency in front of a solid color 
> on the same object, or a solid but translucent color in front of a 
> gradient on the same object. Which is one reason why the idea to use a 
> gradient as a color value for background-color, color, border-color, 
> etc. was so brilliant. 

background-color: gradient() sounds scary for me to be honest.
And color:gradient() and border-color:gradient() sounds scary even more 
if you will look on them from computation point of view.

Andrew Fedoniouk.

Received on Saturday, 15 December 2007 09:01:21 UTC