- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:54:13 -0800
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 6, 2009, at 10:50 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm not sure I understand how the angle would flex, and currently >> believe I would find it *very* confusing if I said "45deg" and ended >> up with a gradient that wasn't a straight diagonal. > > The idea is that the spec would make it clear that you are specifying the > angle as though on a square, but that the final image is dimensionless and > could (would) be stretched and distorted. Just as though you created a > square image in Photoshop with a 45deg gradient, and then resized the image > (except you would have resolution independance). Ah, I see. Yeah, I'm really not happy with doing that. It's a level of abstraction that I believe would be confusing and, frankly, has zero benefit. Right now I say directly what the size of the 'box' is that the gradient uses to size itself, and I think that it's useful the way it is. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 6 November 2009 22:55:06 UTC