** Test List **

• css/css-images/gradient/gradient-eval-002.html
• css/css-images/gradient/gradient-eval-003.html
• css/css-images/gradient/gradient-eval-005.html
• css/css-images/gradient/gradient-eval-006.html
• css/css-images/gradient/gradient-eval-007.html
• css/css-images/gradient/gradient-eval-008.html
• css/css-images/gradient/gradient-eval-009.html
• css/css-images/parsing/gradient-interpolation-method-valid.html
• css/css-images/parsing/gradient-interpolation-method-invalid.html
• css/css-images/parsing/gradient-interpolation-method-computed.html

** Rationale **

When I originally audited all the CSS Color tests in #20, I did consider adding these (see follow up comments), though it wasn't clear at the time that:

1. It would be deemed ready to ship by CSSWG
2. If other browsers needed some kind of fuzzing

Things are more clear now:

1. Yes, this feature was deemed ready to ship: [css-color-5][css-images-4] Are these features ready to ship? w3c/csswg-drafts#7310 (comment)
2. Many tests in the test list need to be changed to fail if the syntax isn't supported (by adding a red background underneath for instance). Also, many tests in the directory test color spaces, so I think we shouldn't need fuzzy matching, but if we do turn out to need it, we can always use our existing fuzzy meta tag.

I don't feel super strongly at this point in the year, I'm mostly filing this issue since to me this seemed more of an unintentional omission than intentional one.

WDYT? @emilio @argyleink