- From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 03:28:14 +0000
- To: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Alan Gresley [mailto:alan@css-class.com]: > On 5/08/2011 3:45 AM, Brian Manthos wrote: > > Brad Kemper: > >> That is a slanted way of characterizing it. The way I see it, > >> 'repeating-linear-gradient' is a way of simulating > >> 'background-repeat' on a possibly rotated canvas. background-repeat > >> can already create a repeating gradient (it just doesn't look good > >> when the gradient path is angled). > > > > Background-repeat has a specific meaning and capabilities. > > > Brad is talking about 'repeating-linear-gradient' looking odd when the > background tile is not rotated. To achieved that, you need to rotate > the > background tile but then that bring up the new issue of how keywords > work for rotated background tiles along with how they are used (will be > used) with keywords with gradients. You're reading more into it than what he said. That may be what he meant, but it's not what he said. I don't see repeating-linear-gradient as a way of simulating background-repeat. It's a variation on linear-gradient with its own behavior. The fact that some flavors of linear-gradient + background-repeat combinations look similar to repeating-linear-gradient is perhaps interesting, but doesn't suggest or imply that they are designed to suit the same needs. Further, Brad wrote: > And there already is very little need/demand for 'repeating-radial-gradient'. I believe quite the opposite. The current repeating-radial-gradient provides capabilities that can't be simulated with background-repeat or any other properties without significant shenanigans. Lastly, let's imagine you did "something interesting" with background-repeat, and tossed out repeating-linear-gradient and repeating-radial-gradient. Well, you've just removed the capability of repeating gradients from list-style-image and generated content. For no good reason. I think the current repeating-linear-gradient and repeating-radial-gradient provide capabilities not found in other places, and aren't easily replaced with other syntax. I recommend we stop fiddling here -- leave these well-defined and well-understood repeating gradients as is.
Received on Friday, 5 August 2011 03:28:53 UTC