Re: Gradients and background-repeat (Was: Re: Automatic spec annotations)

On May 12, 2011, at 10:52 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

What other property? background-image? Oh, come on. Having an image that adapts its output so that two tightly integrated background properties can work together is not evil magic. SVG adapts its output resolution based on 'background-size', doesn't it? Is that magic bad too? When a linear-gradient with 'bottom left' in it adjusts its gradient angle based on the size from 'background-size' or 'width', how is that magic so much better than having linear-gradient with '30deg' in it adjust its gradient angle based on a single value in 'background-rotate'?

I don't think you're giving my idea fair consideration, and I suspect the real reason you resist it so strongly is that you feel it competes with the repeating gradients properties that you've put time into. It has nothing to do with a distaste for "magic". What I've proposed is no more magic than many other things in CSS, including things that you've come up with, and is limited to the sort of tightly integrated workings of backgrounds.