- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 20:51:23 +0000
- To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
I don't expect all combinations can be demonstrated. It doesn't follow that there is no value in enumerating a number of those that are possible/not possible with each proposal and what the corresponding syntax is. This is a fundamentally visual feature, and one that is already widely implemented. If we can't even use that to explain the options on the table - to folks on this mailing list and beyond - all we'll have in two weeks time is a longer thread that will be no more obvious to the wider audience. Modulo examples such as the one you posted. Which I'm only suggesting more of, really. > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Manthos > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 1:13 PM > To: Sylvain Galineau; L. David Baron; Brad Kemper > Cc: www-style@w3.org > Subject: RE: [css3-images] simplifying radial gradients > > Sylvain: > > as such I assume it would be relatively easy to build a sample page > > showing what both proposals allow authors to achieve, as well as those > > things that may be 'cut' by one vs. the other. Said page could also > > show the syntax required in each proposal. > > Unfortunately, that's a pretty broad request. Yes, representative > examples of some *dimensions* of what you lose are demonstrable but it's > the *combination* of the capabilities that makes the feature both powerful > and compelling. It's that interaction of facilities that I *though* was > the motivation to tackle gradients in CSS in the first place, rather than > just telling people "use SVG instead". That is why I recommended either > keeping the capabilities that have been around since before the first > official CSS proposal, or just shelving the entire concept of CSS radial > gradients as an alternative to SVG. > > Let me elaborate on what I mean. > > > BradGrammar1: > radial-gradient( > [circle,]? <color-stop>[, <color-stop>]+ > ) > > > Let's simplify that even further... > > BradGrammar2SimplifiedMore: > radial-gradient( > [circle,]? <color-stop>, <color-stop> > ) > > > Why does anybody need more than two color stops? Can't you just layer > multiple gradients if you want that? After all, Brad's suggested that > background-image is the only one that "really matters" (loose > paraphrasing). So as long as the layering of background properties can > make it work "ok enough" for background-image why should we care about all > other uses of <image> w/r/t CSS gradients? People should just immediately > jump ship to SVG if they want anything background properties can't support. > Right? > > > Let's go even further... > > BradGrammar3SimplifiedEvenMore: > radial-gradient( > <color-stop>, <color-stop> > ) > > If you want a circle, just twiddle the background-size value instead. No > need to "overcomplicate" the syntax by saying you want to have a circle > painted into a non-square box. Use a square box if you want a circle, > silly! > > > And even further... > > BradGrammar4: > radial-gradient( > <color-stop> > ) > > All gradients with two color stops can be decomposed into a pair of > gradients that transition a single color to or from transparency. > > > <color-stop> = <color> [ <percentage> | <length> ]? > > Lastly... > > BradGrammar5: > radial-gradient( > <color> [center | side] > ) > > There's no need to provide a location for the color transition, just where > the non-transparent color is placed. > > /* blue center, transparent sides */ > background-image: radial-gradient(blue center); > /* transparent center, red sides */ > background-image: radial-gradient(red side); > /* red center, blue sides */ > background-image: radial-gradient(red center), radial-gradient(blue side); > > > > Great. Now we've provided really terse syntax. > > Can someone spend some of the next two weeks making a sample page showing > all of what BradGrammar5 makes complicated or impossible to use relative > to the current WD? I'll be the first to say "not it!"
Received on Friday, 7 October 2011 20:51:58 UTC