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

>> Brian:
>> Look at the Acid test example.  They go through all kinds of gyrations to draw a smiley face.  Should we remove all the facilities that "overcomplicate" the way >they choose to accomplish that task?
>That uses complex combinations of multiple properties. I am talking about a single value that gets overly complex.

So your proposal is to move the complexity from one self-contained <image> to a combination of { background-image, background-position, background-size (and others?) }.  You're not removing the complexity, you're just moving it.

Again, I think it's  a step in the wrong direction to break gradients from being a self-contained concept serving the role of an <image> into a combination of properties to produce the desired effect.

Further, in doing so you block the ability to use background-position, background-size, and background-repeat to react to that <image> in the normal way for such scenarios because they're already being used to complete the desired <image>.  Some of my email examples (such as the awning and rainbow) demonstrate that conflict.

I think Simon's point is a fair one.

> 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.

The "increased complexity" parameters that you are proposing to remove are *optional*.  As such, the WD grammar satisfies Simon's requirement.

Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 00:21:21 UTC