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

Re: Gradient syntax proposal

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:10:24 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0908142210v391fb9a3g66c7d02f1cb3217e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Brad Kemper<brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> linear-gradient(
>    -87deg,
>    green 30%,
>    blue 20%,
>    navy
> )
> This means: starting at a point 30% from the box top-left and going down and
> slightly to the right, begin the gradation with green at 30% of the way from
> that corner along that angle (towards where it would need to go at that
> angle to fill  the opposite corner). Then 20% down from the box top-left, it
> should be blue. Then the gradation ends with navy at the end of that angled
> path (a line of navy that intersects the lower right corner).

Argh, you're still not making any sense.  You can't start the gradient
30% from the top, then continue it 20% from the top, and end it 100%
from the top.  That's a zigzag.  >_<


> Did you
> intend to write "blue 50%"?
>
> OK. I see. 30% + 20% would be closer to where her blue is. Sure. Me
> math-adverse sometimes.

So, you *did* mean to write "blue 50%"?  Or did you really mean that
you want to be able to write "blue 20%" in that situation and have it
really mean that blue should start 50% down from the top?

~TJ
Received on Saturday, 15 August 2009 05:11:18 GMT

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