- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:20:34 -0700
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@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>
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > I said 'linear' when I really meant 'radial' there. Maybe that's why I don't understand your answer. Ah, okay. My point was that cropping/moving/sizing is unnecessary for linear-gradient because of the reason I gave, which isn't true for radial gradients. If you weren't trying to refer to linear gradients, then that's kinda irrelevant. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2011 18:21:22 UTC