Subject: W/Out a Crash D-I-E-T

From: Love Your Body Again <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:11:50 -0700

You do not have to work out - Or Starve

In a perfect world, our metabolism would be untouchable and we 
would never have to worry about unwanted weight gain. 

The key to slimming down is burning calories around the clock. 

DocOz Episode Clip tells how -> http://www.macwye.com/oz/season/fat.index

- supports metabolism
- burn more calories
- helps control appetite

[Oz Blog]

to modify your message settings - write - Member Update Systems at:9167 ROAD 177_Oakwood, OH 45873
or visit http://www.macwye.com/wef.ret54

I almost gave up on this, because I didn't know, that I need the comma after the url. Great info! Btw. does it also work with filter-DX-Transform (one can use that for the gradient, but how would I add the image?)   Igor Jul 27 '13 at 19:22
  	  	
Can we change the background-size of the image as well? When i try to add background-size property say 30px 30px, either the gradient also confined to that area or gradient color changing when no-repeat is given externally or given in shorthand form respectively. any help?   Venu Gopal Nov 6 '13 at 13:45
  	  	
@VenuGopal background-size also needs to be comma separated. e.g. background-size: 30px 30px, cover;   Gidgidonihah Nov 6 '13 at 17:32
  	  	
Worth noting is that the reason this works is simply because gradients are technically considered images. In other words, if anyone was wondering, this is in no way a hack - it's just how CSS gradients were made. (This also means that anywhere in CSS that you can use an image URL, you can choose to use a gradient instead.) Also, the reason this doesn't work in IE9 and older is simply because it doesn't support CSS gradients. That has nothing to do with the technique given here.   
  	  	
@Gidgidonihah What Im asking is can we add background-size property in shorthand form. for ex background: #CCC  no-repeat top left; Here can we add background-size as well?   his is a pretty lazy solution. I'm assuming OP wants to use height : auto because the expanded height of the container is somewhat unpredictable. This solution will cause a delay before the animation becomes visible. Additionally the visible duration of the animation will be unpredictable. You'll get much more predictable (and likely smoother) results by calculating the combined height of each of the containers child nodes and then easing to an exact height value.
+1 Great solution! The speed of the transition is calculated is calculated as the time you specify to transition to the max-height value... but since height will be less than max-height, the transition to actual height will occur faster (often significantly) than the time specified.   kingjeffrey Mar 3 '12 at 4:15
9	  	
The transition occurring at a slower rate as @kingjeffrey mentions could also be a good thing. Say you're expanding a menu, the menu will expand at a constant rate for each menu item, so expanding a menu with 9 items will take 9 times longer than a menu with 1. Regular behaviour when using height would the menu with 1 item expand significantly slower than the one with 9. May be desirable depending on the situation.   Daniel Imms Nov 20 '12 at 4:16
11	  	
Note that this may cause ugly transition ending when you have to use values that are much bigger than the actual computed value. I noticed this while trying to make a div grow from 0 height to the content height that varies greatly due to different screen sizes(2 lines on my 2560x1440 monitor vs >10 lines on a smartphone). For this I ended up going with js.   Pichan May 17 '13 at 10:22
37	  	
Great work around - not solution ;)   acSlater May 28 '13 at 15:12
1	  	
It took me long enough to figure out why the transitions were so different... I guess next time I should've been reading the comments more. So yeah the transitions will happen much faster than expected, though this can be managed by changing the types of transitions used. Use ease-out when reducing the max-height to 0, and ease-in when increasing the max-size.