- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:08:37 -0500
- To: robert@ocallahan.org
- Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Robert O'Callahan >> <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: >> >> The end point is the point on the gradient-line where a line drawn >> >> perpendicular from that point would cross the furthest corner of the >> >> box. >> > >> > What if the starting point is equidistant from two "furthest corners" of >> > the >> > box? >> >> That language may have to be cleaned up slightly. Are you thinking of >> a case like, say, a 100px by 100px box with the starting-point at 50px >> 50px (so the starting-point is equidistant from all corners)? What's >> intended is that the "furthest corner" is the furthest *in the >> direction of the gradient-line*. It's still possible for this to be >> ambiguous as to which corner is referred to (frex, take the above box >> and starting-point with an angle of 0deg, so that the NE and SE corner >> are equally far), but in these cases the ending-point is the same no >> matter which corner you choose. > > > Ah, that is confusing because except for 0/90/180/270 degree angles, there > is only one corner "in the direction of the gradient line". Right? Yup. Can you suggest any way to phrase that better? Basically the idea is just that the gradient-line is as long as possible while the perpendicular is still intersecting the box. It may be best to rewrite it something like that.
Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2009 13:09:34 UTC