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

Re: [css3-images] Linear gradients feedback

From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 09:55:21 -0700
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <83961EA1-5575-4D0D-A0A2-84E9F334677B@me.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
On Sep 7, 2010, at 11:15 PM, fantasai wrote:

> 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.

It's for ease of author understanding. It's easier to say "only functions of the same
time can be interpolated" than "a linear-gradient using an angle cannot be interpolated
with a linear-gradient that doesn't use one", especially if we fall into the "angle" or
"non-angle" variants in non-obvious cases.

Simon
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2010 16:56:12 GMT

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