- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:50:35 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tuesday 2011-10-11 09:58 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Oct 7, 2011, at 4:07 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Most of the patterns in Lea's gallery don't use any sizing or > >> positioning at all, only color-stops, and so are equally doable with > >> either the current syntax or Brad's suggested change. They would all > >> need their color-stop positions divided by sqrt(2), though, as Brad's > >> suggested default sizing behavior is "contain". > > > > IIRC, converting them is a matter of multiplying by 1.72 (or thereabouts). > > 1.41, which is approximately sqrt(2). Converting between 'contain' and 'cover' mathematically is only possible for ellipse gradients; for 'circle' gradients there's no single factor since the factor depends on the aspect ratio of the box. Unless we're also eliminating circle and making gradients ellipse-only (where the ellipse is the shape that fits in the background-size rectangle), I think we should keep 'contain' and 'cover'. And I tend to think we should have circle gradients. -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2011 00:51:10 UTC