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

Re: radial-gradient() proposal

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:44:32 -0800
Message-ID: <4AF30F00.5000908@terrainformatica.com>
To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
CC: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Simon Fraser wrote:
> On Nov 5, 2009, at 7:19 am, Brad Kemper wrote:
> 
>> On Nov 5, 2009, at 6:53 AM, Simon Fraser wrote:
>>

>> 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.
> 
> Don't forget that CSS gradients are used for more than just 
> background-image; they are a generic type of generated image that might 
> be used in a lot of other places (list-image, border-image, as masks, 
> potentially as inputs to filters). I don't want gradients to be so tied 
> to background-image that it makes them impossible to use elsewhere, for 
> example in places where background-position is not an option for 
> adjusting the location of the gradient.

Can we re-think concept of gradients to be not images but rather
definitions of brushes? In this case gradient can be used in
almost all places where color currently is allowed:

border-left: 3px dashed linear-gradient(...)
background: linear-gradient(...) url(...) no-repeat bottom right;

So gradient is such a color [... distribution rule].

In this terms single color value is just a
   solid-color( ...that value... )

I would also consider brush like
image-fill( ... )
that uses some image to fill/tile something, e.g. border.

That will obsolete that quite artificial and ugly border-image
attribute.

I believe that we are needlessly limiting ourselves by
putting gradients as such an image.


> 
>> 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.
> 
> I tried some apps to see what the convention is. The Adobe apps 
> (PhotoShop, Illustrator) use the 90deg as "up" rule. In Omnigraffle 
> 90deg was "down". Does anyone else have other apps to try?

Xara is also using 0-east/90-north rotation.

> 
> Simon
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Andrew Fedoniouk.

http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Thursday, 5 November 2009 17:45:01 GMT

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