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

Re: Gradient syntax proposal

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 23:17:41 -0700
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9D47584A-69B6-4391-8B43-283B22C518E9@gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>

On Aug 14, 2009, at 10:10 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> 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.  >_<

The way I wrote it, it would be out of order (which would be  
acceptable syntax, but not matching fantasai's previous example).  
"blue 50%" is what I should have wrote for the point I was making.  
Sorry; I was doing a lot of copying and pasting of parts on my iPhone,  
while also trying to get regular work done for my job (not that  
successfully today). I forgot to add the 2 values together from  
fantasai's example, and it was not immediately obvious to me why you  
were not understanding or what you were getting on about. Sorry if it  
distracted from the valid points I was trying to make.
Received on Saturday, 15 August 2009 06:18:31 GMT

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