- From: Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:29:37 +1100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Mark Straver <mark@wolfbeast.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:22 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > Are you worried about the computed value of the 'transparent' keyword in >>> > the >>> > gradient? If so, that one doesn't resolve to an rgba color. >>> >>> Sure it does. (Or it should be doing so, for consistency - colors >>> should be computed in computed values.) >> >> It does not. I tried Edge, Safari 9, latest Chrome and Firefox. > > Then that's a bug, either in the specs or the implementations. There > is absolutely no reason a color should serialize differently based on > whether it's bare or wrapped in a gradient function. Given all impls current agree with the same behavior here, I guess we can probably make 'transparent' a keyword value in gradient function to simulate premultiplied effect, and revert the general cases to non-premultiplied... - Xidorn
Received on Monday, 25 January 2016 23:30:44 UTC