- From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
- Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 21:45:20 +1100
- To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 2/10/2011 1:39 AM, Simon Fraser wrote:
> It feels like we have this premultiplied gradient discussion about once every 6 months. What new information is there this time?
>
> Simon
Hello Simon.
Is it worth providing new information to a debate that seems to be
pointless in reversing what some are intent in doing to CSS gradients?
Just one test shows exactly what the outcome will be.
<!DOCTYPE html>
<style type="text/css">
body {
height:200px;
background: black -webkit-linear-gradient(left, rgba(255,255,0,1) -25%,
rgba(0,255,255,0) 125%);
background: black -moz-linear-gradient(left, rgba(255,255,0,1) -25%,
rgba(0,255,255,0) 125%);
background: black -ms-linear-gradient(left, rgba(255,255,0,1) -25%,
rgba(0,255,255,0) 125%);
background: black -o-linear-gradient(left, rgba(255,255,0,1) -25%,
rgba(0,255,255,0) 125%);
}
</style>
Currently Gecko, WebKit and IE10 preview 2 shows the above gradient
ranging from light lime --> green --> turquoise green.
Opera shows the above gradient ranging from light olive --> olive -->
dark olive (all of the hue of yellow).
This is the same color that is produced when viewing a shaded part of a
yellow object under certain light conditions. Some may call it darkish
green but that is not correct since all colors that are olive (between
the points of white, black and yellow) has an equal proportion of green
and red.
I guess it come down to rational. This is why I did propose
pre-transparent since red to transparent to blue (on a white background)
does look wrong when done un-premultiplied.
--
Alan Gresley
http://css-3d.org/
http://css-class.com/
Received on Monday, 3 October 2011 10:46:05 UTC