W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2009

Re: radial-gradient() proposal

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:55:55 -0800
Message-ID: <4AF4A97B.5090503@inkedblade.net>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
CC: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Brad Kemper wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2009, at 11:07 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> 
> wrote:
>> I strongly disagree with disregarding the angle here. If I specify an
>> angle, I should get that angle, not some random transformation of it
>> depending on the size of the box.
> So have you considered the advantages and still disagree with the notion 
> of having a switch between two different modes? Or are you just 
> rejecting the entire notion out of hand because you disagree that the 
> default mode should be "act more like other images"?

I strongly disagree that the default mode should be to "act like a resized
image, even if it means disregarding that the author explicitly gave an angle".
One of the advantages of doing gradients in CSS is that you draw the gradient
into the size of the final box: there's no need to draw it into a square and
then resize. This is why mixing percentages and lengths works. (Or really,
why lengths work at all.)

As for a switch to draw the gradient into a square box before resizing
it to actual size... that seems rather silly. I suppose I might be convinced
otherwise, but I don't understand why you wouldn't want to just pick two

Received on Friday, 6 November 2009 22:56:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:40 UTC