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

Re: [css3-images] [css3-values] Inconsistent Angles

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 16:01:54 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTik25-63+WBZ=YxTCLj-jmep2QqR_a7GLfxgzZN+@mail.gmail.com>
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 GMT

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