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

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

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 17:47:58 -0700
Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FF7A6B78-D5ED-453A-879C-8BB54976743C@apple.com>
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
why isn't the starting point for a radial linear gradient "those point(s) on a line perpendicular to the gradient angle, in the most negative position possible, that still just fit(s) within the shape to be filled"?

On Sep 7, 2010, at 16:01 , Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> 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
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2010 00:48:31 GMT

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