Re: Repeating gradient syntax question

On Feb 7, 2011, at 8:40 am, Brad Kemper wrote:

> On Jan 24, 2011, at 1:15 PM, Fraser Pearce wrote:
> 
>> 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) 
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
> I agree with you. I anticipate that almost all practical uses of repeating gradients will be for backgrounds, which already have a method of repeating. Thus, background-repeat is where we should make sure gradients repeat well, even if the gradient is at an angle. I have proposed that we do this by simply rotating the background (i.e. all the tiles of a background-repeat) instead of rotating the gradient inside each tile.

I disagree. I think "background-repeat" should only ever cause repeating of axis-aligned image tiles.

> As for repeating radial gradients, this seems like an effect that will almost never be used. If someone really, really needs a radial gradient that repeats infinitely (instead of just copy-pasting the color stops a few times), they should use an SVG image.

I think repeating radial gradients should be there for symmetry with repeating linear gradients, and I'm sure that designers will find uses for them that we haven't thought of.

Simon