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

Re: radial-gradient() proposal

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:19:00 -0800
Cc: Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <BBDEBADE-4433-439F-B446-3D5DDF33FE27@gmail.com>
To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>

On Nov 5, 2009, at 6:53 AM, Simon Fraser wrote:

> I'd be OK dropping angles from linear gradients. You can always get  
> a fixed
> angle by specifying two points in pixel coordinates; what you lose  
> is the ability
> to have a fixed angle gradient that automatically fills the box. I'm  
> not sure if this
> would be a common use case.

Sorry, but I could not disagree more. I'd say by far, specifying the  
angle would be the easiest, easiest to read and understand, and most  
common way to want to specify a linear gradient. I personally loath  
the "4 offsets" way of specifying beginning and ending endpoints,  
because it adds so much unneeded verbosity, and decreases clarity and  
understanding.  In practice, most blends (and I do mean almost all)  
will be either from edge-to-edge (or corner-to-corner), or will start  
or end some distance from one of those edges or corners in a way that  
can be specified more clearly and succinctly in the stops.

I do not find anything even slightly confusing about using angles to  
specify a linear angle in the way they've been diagrammed in geometry  
classes since forever. I would find it completely counter-intuitive to  
have 0deg or 90deg represent any other directions than that for  
gradients. For rotations, I can appreciate both sides of the argument,  
but if one really has to change I would prefer it to be rotation to  
match gradients, and not the other way around.

Received on Thursday, 5 November 2009 15:19:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:22 GMT