- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 09:04:33 -0800
- To: Fraser Pearce <me@fraserpearce.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Fraser Pearce <me@fraserpearce.com> wrote: > Hi, > In reading the syntax I can't help but feel the way the repeated gradients > work is still a bit long winded and seeminly duplicitive of the non repeat. > I can think of two other, potentially better, ways of writing it in CSS that > would be simpler and clearer. > > My preferred method would simply to have a repeat keyword in the syntax, so > the following: > -webkit-repeating-linear-gradient(left, red, green, blue) > > Would be written: > -webkit-linear-gradient(left, red, green, blue, repeat) I don't see any particular benefit in moving the string "repeat" from the function name to the last argument. > The other option would be to observe the background-repeat value instead, > seeing as ultimately these gradients are generated background images… but in > this option I can't help but think I'm missing taking into account some kind > of effect you wouldn't be able to do this way. This suggestion has been given before (as you see in Brad's reply). I don't think it's a good idea. It changes the meaning of the repeat keywords (now, rather than tiling an image, they magically interact with the image and otherwise act like no-repeat), and it ties this behavior unnecessarily into a single usage. Sorry for rejecting all your feedback. ^_^ Thanks for taking the time to send it in, though! ~TJ
Received on Monday, 7 February 2011 17:05:26 UTC