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

RE: Gradient syntax proposal

From: David Perrell <davidp@hpaa.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:27:28 -0700
To: "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: "Brad Kemper" <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <HIEDLECHAFDEPLGKECDDIEMHAMAB.davidp@hpaa.com>
fantasai wrote:
| I would prefer restricting stops to percentages. The swapping effect
| is confusing, and I don't see any reason you'd /need/ to use lengths
| when you can specify the length of the overall gradient already.

Let's say I want to ensure that the first 2 stops of a vertical gradient span a distance based on em dimensions. The 3rd should be 50% of the remaining length. So, with current proposals, I want:

linear-gradient: top / aqua, darkblue 1em, darkblue 2em, aqua calc(.5 *(100%-2em)), blue;

If the element height becomes less than 4 em, this is going to become totally corrupted if ascending order isn't enforced. I would rather have it degrade to a sharp delineation between darkblue and aqua.

Perhaps a better option is to allow mixed location dimensions and require locations in order, but say that <percentage> between <length> locations applies to the span between the <length> locations. I believe that would solve all the degradation issues and simplify the spec. If this were the case, what's desired above would be spec'd like this:

linear-gradient: top / aqua, darkblue 1em, darkblue 2em, 50%, blue;

50% applies to the halfway point between 2em and the end point.

This not only makes sense, it will never degrade into something totally unlike what's desired. And if you do use all the same types, it will be exactly as if the same types were *required* with the current proposals.

David Perrell
Received on Monday, 17 August 2009 18:28:44 GMT

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