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

RE: radial-gradient() proposal

From: David Perrell <davidp@hpaa.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 09:12:24 -0700
To: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <HIEDLECHAFDEPLGKECDDMEHJANAB.davidp@hpaa.com>
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
| I'm finally happy with my radial-gradient() syntax.  You can view it
| at http://www.xanthir.com/:4bhipd (scroll down past the
| linear-gradient() examples).

Thanks for the warm regards and kind acknowledgement. Most of your update looks good to me (you even got 'contain' contained). But I'm not understanding the description of the <angle> variable (my initial thought was: "tilted ellipse?"). Why would I want to specify gradient-line direction other than to sides or corners? And what does it mean that a gradient-line extends "in from the starting-point" with default angle "0deg...to the left?"

If the default gradient-line is horizontal and the horizontal axis is the minor axis of a narrow ellipse, then <length> color-stops won't always translate as intended from the shorter to the longer axis. You'd have to specify a 90 or 270deg angle to put the gradient-line on the major axis where <length> measurements are most accurate. That doesn't seem right.

What would be lost if you remove the <angle> option and have the gradient-line run from the start-point to the specified <size> point? That seems simpler and more intuitive, and less apt to produce undesirable effects. I somehow got the impression that's what you were thinking of before you updated your draft.

David Perrell
Received on Sunday, 6 September 2009 16:13:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:21 GMT