W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2011

RE: [css3-images] simplifying radial gradients - Lea Verou gallery

From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 09:11:08 +0000
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
CC: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9710FCC2E88860489239BE0308AC5D17F0034D@TK5EX14MBXC266.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
You are incorrect.  Your proposal doesn't *directly* support *in gradients* the expressed capabilities.  Gradients are supported as a flavor of <image> which is exposed by CSS3 Images more broadly than just backgrounds.  As such, using background properties to simulate behavior is an apples to oranges comparison.

If you'd like to propose that [1] we remove "gradients as <image>" and [2] add back "gradients as part of the background-image grammar", we can have that discussion.  But I haven't yet heard that proposed.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brad Kemper [mailto:brad.kemper@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 1:00 AM
> To: Brian Manthos
> Cc: Sylvain Galineau; Alan Gresley; L. David Baron; www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [css3-images] simplifying radial gradients - Lea Verou
> gallery
> On Oct 7, 2011, at 4:00 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > Exactly 50% of the radial gradients usage in Lea's page aren't
> directly supported by Brad's proposal.
> That's not right. You are including everything with bg-position in it,
> including those where an actual <background-position> would work just
> as well or better.
Received on Saturday, 8 October 2011 09:11:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:05 UTC