Brad: >> 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. Simon: > 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:05 UTC