Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2009-08-12

On Aug 13, 2009, at 1:08 AM, Robert O'Callahan 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,
>
> { gradient: white #666 -90deg; }
>
> and
>
> { gradient: #ffffff 0%, #666666 100% 270deg; }
>
> seem much less clear than
> background: linear-gradient(top, white, bottom, #666);
> or even
> background: linear-gradient(top, bottom, from(white), to(#666);

I agree, the background form of the rule is more clear, integrates  
better with existing functionality, and has more potential to be  
reused in other contexts. I especially like the balance of clarity and  
lack of verbosity in the first linear-gradient version above.

Regards,
Maciej