- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 10:52:09 -0700
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 12, 2011, at 9:45 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I wish you would stop calling it names as a means to try to defeat it. It is no more magic than looking at the information inside a JPG in order to determine what 'background-size:auto' means, or to find an intrinsic aspect ratio which then sets a width or height of an image. In this case, we'd be looking inside a CSS-generated image to determine what the background canvas rotation should be, and then limiting the rotation inside the image to zero, in a happily cooperative fashion. >> >> I use the term magic because that's what it is - it's a property value >> tweaking the behavior of certain values of another property. > > linear-gradient is not a property. It is a function to create an image, and that image has the potential to have flexible behavior in this situation. I fail to see that as a bad thing. Exactly, which is why I said "a property value tweaking the behavior of certain values of another property". Having a property tweak particular types of values in another property is pretty bad. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2011 17:59:30 UTC