- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 16:01:54 -0700
- To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote: > On Sep 7, 2010, at 2:20 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> Anybody have any strong objection to me switching the <angle> >> reference to Bearing Angles? > > Not I, but it's a shame that an angle of zero will go up, rather than down, making > it a less than useful default combined with a starting point of 'top'. I've expressed before that I think it would be really bad to try and default *any* static position for the starting-point of an angle gradient. No matter what point you choose, it'll only be actually useful for roughly a quarter of the circle at most. I'm strongly of the opinion that the current starting-point magic for angle gradients is necessary to make it useful for authors without requiring nearly-always-redundant information. 'top' in particular would be a *really bad* starting-point for angle gradients. The only barely-reasonable static starting-points are the four corners. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 7 September 2010 23:02:47 UTC