From: David Perrell <davidp@hpaa.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 22:33:46 -0700
To: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <HIEDLECHAFDEPLGKECDDKEICANAB.davidp@hpaa.com>
```Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
| Specifically, when using closest-side, the vertical axis of the
| ellipse is the distance from the starting-point to the top or bottom
| of the box, whichever is closer, and similarly for the horizontal
| axis.  Thus there are two axis-aligned lengths that are relevant when
| discussing ellipses; the vertical axis and the horizontal axis.
|
| Now, one can certainly favor a particular axis over the other.
| Particularly, there will always be one side of the four that is the
| actual closest (or, to be precise, you can always choose a side which
| is not farther than any other side), and also one that is the actual
| farthest side.  This corresponds to choosing the minor axis under
| closest-side, and the major axis under farthest-side.

My argument was for a gradient-line that extends directly from the start-point to whichever side is nearest to or farthest from that point. The problem with that, as I see it, is that in some cases the gradient line can be on the same axis for both nearest and farthest sides. I do think it important in some cases to force the gradient line to the longest radius. I might want some tight <length> color stops on the major axis that can't be specified on the minor one, because the values will compress to sub-pixel lengths.
|
| However, I don't feel that this axis is important *enough* to justify
| favoring absolutely (though it may indeed be a decent choice by
| default).  In fact, I feel that it's often going to be *more*
| important to choose between "horizontal" and "vertical" than between
| "major" and "minor", as the former two allow you to control alignment
| with other design elements on the page.
|
| So, thoughts so far?  Excepting the final paragraph, do we agree
| on all points?

Still feel that <angle> is inappropriate for anything except ellipse tilt - that to be consistent with linear-gradient, <angle> would describe the angle of the minor axis. But it looks like that's just me.

| Just to be certain, this is purely about the case where you're
| aligning with a corner, right, when <size> is closest-corner or
| farthest-corner?
|
| Can you illuminate?

Not without doing graphical examples of what happens when the box is resized, so I'll retract my contention (yes, it was about to-corner). Anyway, I doubt the feature would get as much use as, say, aspect-ratio.

| Ah, this may be the source of our mutual confusion, then.  Let me
| explain (and if you *do* know all this and instead are objecting to
| something else, just let me know):

I understand the effects you expound on, but have a hard time seeing the angle as being analogous to linear-gradient's <angle>, which specifies the gradient's direction. The radial-gradient's <angle> only effects the relative position of the color-stops.

"...is always 50px wide *in the direction specified*.  So that's the
significance of specifying the direction.  It lets you be certain that
the <length> you're using will actually align with things properly in
at least one direction.  In any other direction the length might be
stretched or squished as the ellipse deforms from a true circle."

"If you've ever used GIMP (I presume Photoshop works similarly), the
of both types.  You click and hold at the center point, then drag a
line out to where you want the ending-shape to be and release.  That
line you pull out is the gradient-line that I reference in the
proposal."