- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:36:20 -0800
- To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Reading this: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#gradients- The very first phrase: "A gradient is a browser-generated image specified entirely in CSS, which consists of smooth fades between several colors." appears as technically incorrect. Common interpretation of the gradient in graphics: rule that defines color progression or distribution of colors inside some figure. Filling of some image by gradient is just one of possible cases. This for example: http://www.terrainformatica.com/w3/ed-gradient.png is an example of equidistant gradient. I mean that insisting on gradient as such a "generated image" cuts many useful cases upfront. As I said couple of times already: gradients belong to the value of 'background-color' attribute more than to 'background-image'. If to think that gradient is such a background-image then we need to define how such an image is affected by say: background-size: ...; background-attachment: ... | fixed | local; background-repeat: ...; And second paragraph: "In many places this specification references a box, such ...." definitely requires more formal specification. E.g. "would be filled by an SVG image" is just sort of guess or appellation to reader's intuition. -- Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Saturday, 7 November 2009 23:36:54 UTC