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

Re: [css3-images] Linear gradients feedback

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 23:15:47 -0700
Message-ID: <4C872A13.3040007@inkedblade.net>
To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 09/07/2010 09:43 PM, Simon Fraser wrote:
> On Sep 7, 2010, at 8:15 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:59 PM, fantasai<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>  wrote:
>>> And you'd rather use a comma than "to"? I think it's clearer to use "to"
>>> since we're separating the colors with commas.
>>
>> I prefer commas because it's more consistent, and it's how nearly
>> every programming language does functions, particularly javascript.
>>
>>> While we're at it, the use of a comma to separate the geometry from the
>>> colors also bothers me for the same reason.
>>>
>>> How about
>>> linear-gradient(<position>  [to<position>]? as<color>,<color>, ...)
>>> ?
>>
>> That seems even worse to me.  ^_^
>>
>>> If the problem is DOM access, why not define different interfaces for
>>> them (LinearBoxGradient and LinearAngleGradient), but leave the parsed
>>> syntax the same?
>>
>> That's smfr's call.  What do you think, Simon?  Would that be sufficient?
>
> It doesn't help with interpolation for animation.

And how would different functional notation improve that?
It's just notation.

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2010 06:16:23 GMT

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