W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2010

Re: [css3-images] Linear gradients feedback

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 08:59:43 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimo=QqwsLfryx+x28cFJ0mavtDoBsa346ru3dh1@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:
> Glazou reminded me in a tweet of another good reason that we should
> strive to keep the different-behaving functions separate: the CSS OM.
> We need to design gradients such that the properties exposed in the OM
> are sensible, and behave predictably under modification.

That's convincing.  We just need a name, then.  I'm hoping I can do
this without resorting to "linear2-gradient()"...


>> Using a combination of two positions and an angle is awkward,
>>> because one of the points may no longer lie on the gradient
>>> axis. That's why the point/angle/length combination seems more
>>> natural here.
>>
>> Hmm, maybe.  If, as you say, we make percentages in the <length> refer
>> to the distance from the starting-point to the "line intersecting the
>> corner" point, and make it default to 100%, I think that could be
>> okay.
>>
>> I'd still want the starting-point to use the "corner in the opposite
>> direction of the angle" smarts if left out, though.
>
> I'm ok with both of those.

Cool.  Brad, what do you think?

~TJ
Received on Friday, 3 September 2010 16:00:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:31 GMT