Re: radial-gradient() proposal

On Nov 7, 2009, at 9:39 am, Brad Kemper wrote:

> On Nov 6, 2009, at 2:55 PM, fantasai wrote:
>
>> Brad Kemper wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 2009, at 11:07 AM, fantasai  
>>> <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>>>> I strongly disagree with disregarding the angle here. If I  
>>>> specify an
>>>> angle, I should get that angle, not some random transformation of  
>>>> it
>>>> depending on the size of the box.
>>> So have you considered the advantages and still disagree with the  
>>> notion of having a switch between two different modes? Or are you  
>>> just rejecting the entire notion out of hand because you disagree  
>>> that the default mode should be "act more like other images"?
>>
>> I strongly disagree that the default mode should be to "act like a  
>> resized
>> image, even if it means disregarding that the author explicitly  
>> gave an angle".
>> One of the advantages of doing gradients in CSS is that you draw  
>> the gradient
>> into the size of the final box: there's no need to draw it into a  
>> square and
>> then resize. This is why mixing percentages and lengths works. (Or  
>> really,
>> why lengths work at all.)
>>
>> As for a switch to draw the gradient into a square box before  
>> resizing
>> it to actual size... that seems rather silly.
>
> That's kind of harsh.
>
>> I suppose I might be convinced
>> otherwise, but I don't understand why you wouldn't want to just  
>> pick two
>> points.
>
> Well, I've explained why before, but here it is again:

Hi Brad

Just that we all understand what your current proposal is, could you  
post a summary (in an email with an appropriate subject)? At this  
point I'm not clear on how it differs from what Tab has at <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#gradients- 
 >.

Thanks
Simon