- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:54:27 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
I said 'linear' when I really meant 'radial' there. Maybe that's why I don't understand your answer. On Oct 12, 2011, at 2:27 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: >> I don't see how. I am giving 'linear-gradient()' equal standing to 'url()'. CSS does not include ways for BMP/JPG/PNG images to be cropped, moved, and sized within 'url()', So why does radial-gradient have to have ghat? > > Linear gradients have the advantage that, no matter what size and > position you choose for the gradient-line, you can construct a > gradient with identical appearance that has the gradient-line defined > as the draft does (centered in the box, with endpoints placed in a > particular way). Radials don't have that. > > ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2011 16:55:03 UTC