RE: [css3-images] simplifying radial gradients

> From: Brad Kemper [mailto:brad.kemper@gmail.com]
> One of my goals, as with the changes that were made to linear-gradient,
> was to not have a lot of duplication between background properties and
> gradient parameters. For one, we don't need to recreate backgrounds
> within the image, when background is by far the most common way to use
> images. Secondly, it is a recipe for confusion when there are multiple
> ways to create the exact same effects. It is much more clear and easy
> to learn when there is one "normal" way to create a given effect (not
> including unit conversions, extra spaces/tabs, etc.). It can be
> especially confusing when using background shorthand and the same or
> equivalent keywords and measurements are used inside and outside the
> measurement part for no good reason (other than, perhaps, for
> intentional obfuscation, as Brian suggested).
> 
> I think if other uses of images ('content' property, filters, etc.)
> don't have ways to move, size, or clip an image, then they should get
> them, if that is important. It is no less important for raster images
> and SVG than it is for this flavor of generated images.


If "gradients as <image>" is intended to be a replacement for BMP/JPG/PNG downloaded files, this mindset is a barrier to that.

I think the (W3C) priority of providing that replacement trumps the (personal) goal you keep asserting of limiting it to "gradients as <background-image>".