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

Re: Gradient syntax proposal

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:12:57 -0700
Message-ID: <4A899DA9.5030005@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Brad Kemper<brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 15, 2009, at 10:09 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> So, hey, question unrelated to the debate.
>>>
>>> Currently, I say that if the starting-point and ending-point are the
>>> same, then the rule is invalid.  SVG says that in this situation the
>>> 'gradient' is just the solid color specified by the furthest
>>> color-stop.
>>>
>>> I'd be fine with adopting this rule to cleave closer to SVG.  Anyone
>>> have any objections?
>> If I saw the following:
>>
>> linear-gradient(top / green 50%, blue 50%)
>>
>> I would assume the top half of the box was green and the bottom half blue,
>> with a sharp division between, since the colors continue on both sides. As
>> though the gradation took place within 0 pixels. Is that the sort of
>> situation you mean?
> 
> Nah, what you're expressing is already exactly how things work.
> Color-stops are allowed to hit the same points.
> 
> I'm talking about a situation like:
> 
> linear-gradient(top to top / green, blue)
> 
> If something analogous was expressed in SVG, it would just be a big
> blue image, since blue was the furthest color stop.  Right now in my
> proposal it's invalid.

Makes sense to me, because you can't derive an angle from that.
The transition would take zero distance but without a definite
angle, there are infinite gradients that fit that description.

~fantasai
Received on Monday, 17 August 2009 18:13:41 GMT

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