- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 13:03:11 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Dec 1, 2010, at 10:22 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > > I claim it's irrelevant because, well, it is. ^_^ Gradients are > finite-sized regardless of the value you give to background-size, and > thus the interaction between gradients and tiling/etc is always > present. You seemed to be stating that setting background-size to a > non-default value changes things somehow, which is incorrect. I am not making that claim. I only mention sizing because it is relevant to authors who want to see if the background is extending or not, or if the tiles are tiling (although 'background-position could also let them see the tiling too). Something that goes hand in hand with what we're talking about is not irrelevant to the discussion.
Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2010 21:03:54 UTC