- From: Ben Ward <benmward@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:03:00 +0100
- To: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Cc: Maniac <Maniac@softwaremaniacs.org>, www-style@w3.org
> 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. Mnnnggghh... I think the most basic angles (45 degree) are pretty desirable. By all means I'm not fussed about anything in between 45 and 90, but those NE, SE, SW, NW diagonals are very desirable to me at least. > - Has using keywords in a 'function' got precedent? It seems odd. Probably not, but I can't see anything wrong with it. It's an enumeration, I don't see it being an especially complex concept for authors to grasp after grasping the concept of functions in the first place. >> 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 doesn't just apply > to backgrounds, but to borders and colors as well. I second that. I don't like the property based syntax at all as it's very cluttered. > Then why choose? Let's specify gradient-direction both in helpful > keywords and flexible degrees. Like 'background-position' currently does. Agreed. > There's one problem with all this by the way: in most cases, it isn't > incrementally renderable. OK, my brain's gone like butter. Could you possibly slap up a quick example of the problem that I can look at when I get home. I'm pretty sure I know what you're getting at but would like to be sure! Thanks. Ben http://ben-ward.co.uk
Received on Monday, 15 August 2005 16:03:06 UTC