- From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 10:44:43 -0700
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, 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>
On Oct 8, 2011, at 4:00 PM, Brad Kemper wrote: > On Oct 8, 2011, at 2:11 AM, Brian Manthos wrote: > >> 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. > > It has always been my contention that <bg-position> inside the gradient is mostly redundant to using background-position, because the vast majority of use cases and needs for radial gradients are within backgrounds. The fact that you could also conceivably use them as bullet points or carefully constructed border images is almost (not quite, but almost) incidental, and doesn't demonstrate a need for extra complexity for that limited extra use. If we are optimizing for a particular use case, it should be for use in backgrounds. I have to disagree on this point. I think generated images are going to see more and more use cases outside background-image, with filters etc. in the pipeline. For this reason, I think that positioning should be in the radial gradient syntax. I also think that we should follow "make simple things easy, make hard things possible" rule. If the extra complexity added by allowing positioning in the radial gradient syntax doesn't complicate the most common use cases, then I see no reason not to have it. Simon
Received on Monday, 10 October 2011 17:45:21 UTC