- From: Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 22:54:05 -0600
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, "news@terrainformatica.com" <news@terrainformatica.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 8, 2009, at 7:08 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > >> We can actually be stronger about this - gradient images are infinite >> in size (the abstract concept of 'box' used when describing their >> rendering has no intrinsic size), > > I don't think that is an accurate statement. They have no intrinsic size, > but 100% in a color-stop would match the width of the background-size for > 0deg linear-gradients. That's not infinite size, but is full resolution at > any size. Right, but I think his point is just that a color is still defined for any point beyond the final color-stop, even if it's not displayed. Even with a finite extent/color-stop box, the gradient itself *could* cover an infinite plane with color. However, if a gradient is a generated image, it makes sense to respect background-size as the canvas (so to speak) that the gradient is drawn on. That seems to be what most people here had already assumed would happen. Would percentage-type values for end points scale with background-size, then?
Received on Monday, 9 November 2009 04:54:39 UTC