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

Re: Gradient syntax proposal

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 09:11:05 -0700
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6EE1ABB4-3A0E-4BAB-A112-2DCB90B2629C@gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>

On Aug 15, 2009, at 7:37 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Brad Kemper<brad.kemper@gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Heh, no problem.  It was a big distraction for me, but it's cleared up
> now, so we're cool.

OK. It actually serves to make my point. I was myself thrown off as a  
direct result of 2 percentages that were based on two entirely  
different lengths. That kind of thing is just asking for trouble. A  
person should not have to add numbers together to know where their  
color-stop is really going to end up in relation to the box. And I  
really don't envision many people using calc() so that they can have  
the last stop of the gradation end such a precise distance from two  
sides (as though the distance to the sides in a corner-to-corner blend  
is going to be so much more important than the distance to the corner).
Received on Saturday, 15 August 2009 16:11:48 GMT

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