- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:11:37 -0700
- To: "David Perrell" <davidp@hpaa.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com>, "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Aug 15, 2009, at 3:52 PM, David Perrell wrote: > Brad Kemper wrote: > | You mean because having the bg-positions to start and stop on is > | essentially creating a new box with it's own internal dimensions of > | 0%-100% and 0px or more? You thinking you can just create a second > | background thats as small as that box? I was think of that too, but > | the gradation actually needs to keep going on all four sides of that > | box, even at odd angles, so I don't think that'd work. > > Well, could no-repeat stop it from going on all four sides? > > Oh, wait, semantically, that makes no sense... > > Except that it's an IMAGE, not a color, right? Sized background > images with > no-repeat don't go out on all four sides. Right. That's why that wouldn't work, and why they're using x/y coordinates to create a separate area for the 0% to 100% stop positions instead.
Received on Sunday, 16 August 2009 00:12:22 UTC