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

Re: Gradients in CSS3?

From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:48:47 +0200
Message-ID: <4300B95F.6070202@students.cs.uu.nl>
To: Maniac <Maniac@SoftwareManiacs.Org>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

Maniac schreef:
>> Eh? Surely everybody knows that if 0 degrees is top-bottom then 90 
>> degrees is right-left? And that 45 is something inbetween?
> 
> Yes. But 45 is not what you need to specify gradient for a non-sqaure 
> rectangle. Keywords 'ul-br' and 'bl-ur' mean straight line from corner 
> to corner, no matter how many degrees is this for a given rectangle. 
> They don't mean just 45 or -45.

Okay, I see your point :).

In that case, I prefer to just limit the gradients to top-bottom and 
left-right, and not do angles at all. As said, that will probably 
account for 99% of the cases that people would use it anyway.


>> - Has using keywords in a Ďfunctioní got precedent? It seems odd.
> 
> Then don't make it function, it doesn't matter. Let's make it like this:
> 
> background-gradient-colors:blue white;
> background-gradient-direction:ul-br;
> 
> And use it in a shorthand:
> 
> gradient:blue white ul-br;

The advantage of having it as a function is that it doesnít just apply 
to backgrounds, but to borders and colors as well.


>> Frankly, either is fine with me.
> 
> Then why choose? Let's specify gradient-direction both in helpful 
> keywords and flexible degrees. Like 'background-position' currently does.

Yeah, thatís true, thatís possible as well.

Thereís one problem with all this by the way: in most cases, it isnít 
incrementally renderable.


~Grauw

-- 
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san nan da!!
Received on Monday, 15 August 2005 15:49:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:40 GMT