- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 17:42:17 -0800
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 1, 2010, at 5:27 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> I was talking about the repeating-*-gradient() functions, which Moz >> has implemented behind a prefix right now. > > Ah, I stand corrected. > > So, having twice as many gradient functions is preferable to just making background-repeat work better then? Yes. Having separate functions makes it easier to intuit the differences in transition-ability (the number of color-stops doesn't matter for repeating gradients, as they effectively have infinite of them, and thus you can always match up color-stops between any two repeating gradients). It also avoids having magic behavior tied to background-repeat, where setting 'repeat' on a linear gradient tiles and then rotates the whole layer, while setting it on radial gradients just tiles. background-repeat stays consistent and orthogonal in its behavior. Finally, it ensures feature parity between the two types of gradients - you can tile *or* repeat both gradients. (And, of course, this is all dependent on me actually uncommenting the section on repeating gradients.) ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2010 01:43:14 UTC