- From: divya manian <divya.manian@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 23:51:44 +0200
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, 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 Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> One of my concerns is that I would not like us to make easy things incomprehensible. When I was reviewing Lea Verou's gallery, I was struck by how several of them were very hard to understand what was happening, and how they could have been simplified and combined with familiar background properties. Some did use background-position while others used positioning within the image, with no clear reason to do so ("hearts" was like that). Yet every single example was already using 'background-size', and so already could have done much of the sizing and positioning without extra parameters for the image. The only ones that couldn't were those that did clipping of the gradient.
I am pretty sure the incomprehensibility ship has sailed when the very
first gradients shipped. People have been working with these gradients
for more than a year (and apparently pretty successfully). If they
will be using these complex gradients, they would doubtless just copy
paste from a gallery site like Lea's rather than roll their own.
Received on Monday, 10 October 2011 21:52:20 UTC