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

Fwd: Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2009-08-12

From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:26:35 +0200
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <200908211426.35866.bert@w3.org>
[The message was too large. For the whole message with attachments, see 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Aug/0061.html
- Bert]

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: [Moderator Action (size limit exceeded)] Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and 
Resolutions 2009-08-12
Date: Thursday 13 August 2009
From: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, robert@ocallahan.org

From: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Robert O'Callahan<robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
>> That seems far more complicated than what we currently have. By writing it
>> as a 'gradient' rule you don't benefit background-clip, background-position,
>> background-repeat, multiple backgrounds, and falling back to a background
>> image. It's not extensible to other kinds of gradients, and doesn't handle
>> repeating gradients. And even so,
> 
> Agreed - it should stay as a functional notation denoting an image
> that just happens to be constructed by the browser.
> 
> As to the actual syntax:
> 
> I think the major loss of the current syntax is the functional
> notation of the colors.  It's a large gain in complexity, increases
> the chance of an accidental mistake, and gains us nearly nothing from
> what I can tell.
> 
> The vast majority of gradients will, I believe, be simple 2-color
> fades.  As such, requiring someone to write "from(white),to(black)" is
> almost criminal when they could just write "white,black" or even
> "white black".

+1

> More complex gradients are also overcomplexified.  The vast majority
> of complex gradients will be simple n-color fades, going from one to
> the next in turn.  Again, it's criminal to then make someone write
> "from(white),color-stop(50%,orange),to(black)" when they could just
> say "white orange black".

What do you think of a syntax like :

    gradient: <gradienttype> [<gradientcolors>]?

        <gradienttype> : <linear> | <radial> | <square> | ...
        <linear> : linear\(<point>,(<point> | <angle>)\) 
                // The first point is 'from' and second is 'to', if the 
second argument is an angle
        <radial> : radial\(<point>,<point>\) 
                // First point is 'center of the radial' and second is a 
point of the 100% circle
        ...

        <point> : (top | bottom)? <length>? (left | right)? <length>? 
                            // top left is by default;top 10% right 5% 
is the point 
                            located at 10% of the top and 5% of the end 
of the gradient image
        <lenght> : Or should it be <percentage> ?
    
        <gradientcolors> : <color>, [<length> <color>, ]* <color> 
                            // First is always at 0%, last at 100%

Sample :

    gradient: radial(left, right) white, 50% #ddd, black;

Would produce :



Sample :
    
    gradient: linear(top left, bottom right) white, black;

Would produce :

    A simple linear diagonal gradient from white to black;

Sample :

    gradient: linear(left 50%, right) black, white;

Would produce :




Regards,
François

-------------------------------------------------------


Bert
-- 
  Bert Bos                                ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/
  http://www.w3.org/people/bos                               W3C/ERCIM
  bert@w3.org                             2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
  +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92            06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Friday, 21 August 2009 12:27:13 GMT

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