- From: Rafal Chlodnicki <rchlodnicki@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 16:46:08 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 07:25:23 +0200, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 4, 2011, at 8:28 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote: >> 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. > > My point was that we already have a familiar way of repeating things in > backgrounds, and even with 'repeating-linear-gradient' available in > prefixed versions, authors seem to greatly prefer using > background-repeat and background-size instead, as I predicted. That is > my impression from looking at the code of many of the samples that Lea > Verou has showcased [1]. > > You don't need shenanigans to get there. If we had 'background-rotate' > to rotate the background canvas, you would even need a magic 'auto' > value to deal with gradients. You could just set them to 'from bottom' > (or whatever that will be called), and then set 'background-rotate' to > some number of deg. How would you do such gradient without specifying all that repeating stops manually: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/repeating3.png ? -- Rafał Chłodnicki Core QA, Opera Software ASA
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2011 14:46:28 UTC