Re: [css3-images] simplifying radial gradients

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