W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2005

Re: Gradients in CSS3?

From: Kevin Lawver <kplawver@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:04:28 -0400
To: WWW-Style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BF26273C.6D7C%kplawver@aol.com>

I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I think the constructor
should be more like url() than a property, so we could use gradients for
more than backgrounds.  It should be something like:


I don't want to start doing more than necessary to get simple gradients, and
I certainly don't want to recreate SVG.  But, if we can find a way to get
gradients without making the user download a separate resource, I'm all for


Kevin Lawver
AOL | CSS Working Group

On 8/15/05 10:57 AM, "Laurens Holst" <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl> wrote:

> Maniac schreef:
>>> That is far less flexible though, and I
>>> can't see that any user of CSS would have problem using degrees;
>> I'm talking about complexity for authors. CSS is mostly hand-written
>> after all, and it's hard to count atan(57/143) in mind.
> Eh? Surely everybody knows that if 0 degrees is top-bottom then 90
> degrees is right-left? And that 45 is something inbetween? I donıt think
> that is complex for authors.
> Degrees advantages:
> - Degrees is easier to specify (no need to specify keywords).
> - Keywords require the author to know what the different keywords are.
> - More flexible than keywords (more angles possible).
> - Has using keywords in a Œfunctionı got precedent? It seems odd.
> Keywords advantages:
> - Easier to implement, no need to work with sine and cosine.
> - Gives a clear indication of the exact direction. As opposed to
> degrees, which might raise questions: at what point does it start (top),
> and in what direction does it turn (clockwise). The suggestions in
> parenthesis are the same on e.g. margin, so itıs not just out of the
> blue though.
> - Only two keywords needed really.
> - 99% of the cases will use straight angles anyway.
> Frankly, either is fine with me.
> ~Grauw
Received on Monday, 15 August 2005 15:04:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:20 UTC