Vladimir Vukicevic wrote: > * Is preserving some ability to still do gradients using images on > non-Gecko browsers worthwhile?
Yes. In fact, I'm a little concerned about exposing this to non-chrome code in general if we suspect that this will never get interoperably implemented; having content depending on Gecko-only features is really not something we should be trying to encourage, imo. If we _do_ introduce such features (and I agree that there is a very compelling use case for gradients), I think we should make it possible to use them in ways that degrade gracefully. I looked at the www-style archives briefly, and one proposal that seems to have been made is allowing something like: gradient(...) as a value for <color>. I'm not sure how happy we can make the syntax, but if we did something like that, then: * Gradient clearly replaces the background color. * Fallback is easy: background: url(image.png); background: gradient(....); * Gradients are not a priori limited to backgrounds (though I'm not sure how easy it would be to do them with text, etc, so we may want to only parse it for background-color). The most likely disadvantage is that you have to stuff all the info on your gradient into this gradient() function, which could be a syntax mess. :( And I don't have a good suggestion on better syntax, sadly. -Boris (This is what the last chunk of the > proposal above tries to fix -- a way to tell gecko to ignore any > background image.) > > * The proposed syntax for -moz-background-gradient really sucks, but I > have a hard time coming up with anything better. > > Thoughts? > > - Vlad > _______________________________________________ dev-tech-layout mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-layout
