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

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

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 09:02:30 -0700
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <09ABD2CD-BA55-4873-84BB-C8F28A2A3DA2@gmail.com>
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>

On Sep 7, 2010, at 3:58 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

>>>> This makes the gradient syntax the odd one out. Therefore its use of angles
>>>> should be
>>>>  a) defined in the prose somewhere instead of implied by illustration
>>>>  b) use the Bearing Angle Method, i.e. 0deg points up and angles increase
>>>>     clockwise
>>>> 
>>>> Furthermore, the CSS3 Values and Units module should make this convention
>>>> explicit so that later spec-writers don't make the same mistake. (Also,
>>>> the outdated reference to ACSS and the 0-360 normalization requirement
>>>> should be removed.)
>>> 
>>> Argh, I was hoping I could avoid this, but it seems like I maybe can't.  ;_;
>>> 
>>> Anybody have any strong objection to me switching the <angle>
>>> reference to Bearing Angles?
>>> 
>>> ~TJ
>>> 
>> 
>> Yes.
> 
> Yes, you have a strong objection?  Can you elaborate?

Yes, and I will more fully, soon. But for starters, I don't consider the gradient direction to be a bearing. A bearing is an angular deviation from north or from forward, typically. Nor is it a rotation of some default angle, in most folks mind, I believe, even though I think that is how SVG folks view it.

I've been put some stuff together about this, stressing simplicity and familiarity (among graphic designers and other "normals"). Please give me a few days to make it presentable.
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2010 16:03:06 GMT

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