Re: [gradients] basics

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> I'm confused. Why should background-size and background-repeat have no
> effect on gradient images? Sure, the image has no intrinsic size, but you
> can define a useful size with background-size.

I can certainly see a use for such, and now that I look back at the
Surfin' Safari post, I see that they explicitly support it in the
logical way (confirmed now that I've gotten my nightly working again).
 The gradient trybuild of FF I have, though, doesn't appear to apply
background-size to gradients.

(Fiddles with things…)

Okay, nightly of Firefox supports it the same as Webkit.

That's actually a little inconvenient.  The default radial gradient
(with a <size> of 'cover'), for example, will produce an image that
*always* overfills the box.  You can't get at that extra, though,
because the image is chopped to the size of the box.  Playing with
background-position shows that it just stops at the edge.

This complicates things a bit for me, as I was expecting to be able to
use background-position to get around the need for manually specifying
the aspect ratio of the ellipse - you could previously just move the
starting point to wherever would produce the ratio you want, and then
background-position it into the location you want.  Now it looks like
I may have to add explicit ratio controls.  ;_;

But I suppose it makes sense.  Sigh.  Okay, people, let's open the
table for discussion.  Simon, I know you had some thoughts on ratio
controls at TPAC.  How necessary are they, and what were your
proposals for doing so again?

~TJ

Received on Monday, 9 November 2009 14:39:23 UTC