- From: Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 14:01:36 +0200
- To: "David Singer" <singer@apple.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> skreiv Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:05:01 +0200 > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 5:41 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: >> On Sep 7, 2010, at 12:41 , Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 12:33 PM, fantasai >>> <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: >>>> Why aren't we using the grammar at the bottom of >>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Aug/0232.html >>>> ? I think that's much more straightforward. >>> >>> Except for using a comma instead of "to", that's what I'm looking at >>> right now. We just want to split the angle case out into a separate >>> function, and need a name for it. I think I'll just use >>> angle-gradient() until someone gives me something better. >> >> I thought I had. >> >> You can't contrast radial-gradient with angle-gradient, because the >> latter is actually a linear-gradient. And having a third called >> linear-gradient would be even more confusing. Which is why I suggested >> radial-gradient >> linear-box-gradient >> linear-angle-gradient >> >> wordy as they are. > > It's that wordiness that makes me not particularly like them. ^_^ > Just typing out linear-gradient() is already painfully long to me. > And demoting just the angle gradient to a second-class citizen with a > three-word name isn't very appealing either. How about just radial-gradient box-gradient angle-gradient ? If the classification as linear gradients is important, IMHO it can be expressed by putting them in a "Linear gradients" chapter in the spec. -- Leif Arne Storset Core Technology Developer, Opera Software Oslo, Norway
Received on Thursday, 9 September 2010 12:03:29 UTC