- From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:25:04 +0000
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: "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>
It's a new day, so I'll try again... Use case: 1. Web author makes or inherits a webpage with a gradient in a PNG or BMP file. 2. Web author's site owner wants to improve performance / load on the server. 3. Web author tries to replace url(gradientrasterized.png) with radial-gradient(...). RESULT: Works only if the radial gradient is centered. That's a failure case. IMO, it's completely irrelevant whether it's background-image, list-style-image, border-image, generated content, or fancy-CSS-feature-from-the-future. As the WD stands, anything consuming radial gradients in url-based form today will have a drop in replacement for each occurrence of url(gradientrasterized.png) without any additional changes to their CSS or HTML. In many cases, it will be the *same* radial-gradient(...) syntax across all those occurrences but that's a secondary priority. To my knowledge, all proposals subsequent to the 2011/09/08 WD do not meet that criteria. SVG via data URI (cumbersome) and inline SVG (HTML5 only?) are alternatives, but (as some have expressed) not as desirable for other reasons. > -----Original Message----- > From: Brad Kemper [mailto:brad.kemper@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 9:54 AM > To: Tab Atkins Jr. > Cc: Brian Manthos; L. David Baron; Sylvain Galineau; Alan Gresley; www- > style@w3.org > Subject: Re: [css3-images] simplifying radial gradients > > 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 17:25:43 UTC