W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Gradient syntax proposal

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:31:00 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0908141031w2c533a18xf4e1b9afe0e41a0c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin McNickle <mmcnicklebugs@googlemail.com>
Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Martin
McNickle<mmcnicklebugs@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 09:34 -0500, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> Am I missing anything?  Am I making anything too complex?  Are there
>> ways to improve this/make it simpler/make it prettier?
>
> Given that a large number of these gradients will be simple
> vertical/horizontal ones, you could make the following simplification:
>
> <gradient-line>:
> [
>  <angle> [inner | outer]?
> |
>  [ left | right | top | bottom ] [ left | right | top | bottom ]?
> |
>  <bg-position>, <bg-position>
> ]
>
> where the second keyword is now optional.
>
> When the second keyword is omitted, you assume the opposite side.
>
> So:
>
> background: linear-gradient(top, yellow, blue);
> background: linear-gradient(top bottom, yellow, blue);
>
> are equivalent as are:
>
> background: linear-gradient(right, yellow, blue);
> background: linear-gradient(right left, yellow, blue);
>
> The syntax for producing a simple vertical/horizontal gradient is now very succinct.

Ooh, good idea.  That also makes it congruent with the corner syntax,
where you just specify one corner and the opposite is assumed.  I've
changed the proposal to reflect that.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 14 August 2009 17:31:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:20 GMT