- From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 05:25:42 +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>
Incorrect again. That's an illogical (extreme) conclusion, not a logical one. AFAIK, nobody on the planet conceives of a radial gradient as having multiple center points -- which is what background-repeat offers. You're mixing apples and oranges once again. I repeat my assertion: If we want to continue to provide gradients as a flavor of <image>, we should do so at least as fully as was offered in the initial CSS proposal (and prior to that in the prefixed offerings by various browsers). Progress usually implies moving forward, not backward, in functionality. > From: Brad Kemper [mailto:brad.kemper@gmail.com] > > If we follow your logic to its extreme (as you did when you > demonstrated how to get more extreme in simplifying [1]), then we > should also put <bg-repeat>, <bg-attachment>, and multi-gradient > layering within the image, in case some authors want to include even > more background-like power in their list images. Or in case if someone > wants to include their logo in front of a gradient in their list image, > we could add a <bg-image> parameter too. The line between power on one > end and simplicity on the other has to be drawn somewhere. I would just > drawing it closer to simplicity for CSS gradients than you would.
Received on Sunday, 9 October 2011 05:26:14 UTC