Re: [css3-images] Repeating oblique gradients

What was unclear in my last e-mail?

You mentioned 'background-repeat:extend' as though it was a done deal, and I reminded you that we had also discussed making the extend behavior automatic for any non-repeating "background-repeat" value (so no "extend" value is needed). I don't have a strong opinion either way, but was laying out the differences.
You said resizing the image is irrelevant to the discussion about filling the background (or perhaps about tiling too, as I had talked about in the part you quoted). I defended why I had brought it up: because it lets you see several tiles at once (if tiling), or the area outside the image (if not). Thus, you can't just pretend that tiling gradient images in backgrounds won't exist. When combined with 'background-size', it is a rather obvious way to get repeating gradients.
You said it was a "happy coincidence" that tiling gradient images can produce nice effects of repeating patterns. I responded that nice effects of repeating patterns is exactly what background-repeat is for. I'd say it was a more of a "happy coincidence" that you can do something similar inside the image by adding more and more repeating color stops, or by adding a keyword to repeat the color stops, except that it is really rather deliberate to have the ability to do so. I think it is absurd for anyone to take the fact that repeating gradient images as tiles in a background mostly works well (but needs some improvement with diagonals), and say it has no bearing on the "general problem of a repeating gradient". The gradients you are working on is in an IMAGES module, so a repeating image and a repeating gradient DO have bearing on each other, because the gradient IS an image. Since authors will be repeating these images in backgrounds, why would you NOT want them to work well when the gradient direction is angled, now that we have the opportunity to do so?

On Nov 30, 2010, at 4:42 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> At this point I'm too confused about what you think I'm saying to be
> able to usefully respond to this email.  I just know that there's
> still significant lingering confusion where you're responding to
> things that I'm not saying.
> Can you restate what the problems you have are, so I can respond to
> them directly?
> ~TJ

Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2010 04:48:45 UTC