# Re: Linear gradients, Transforms and angles...

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:05:57 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikmsDwFJJewtSkxYry-YYQA8V+jc9qh1kkQ52=T@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
```On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Daniel Glazman
<daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:
> Guys, I have a (light) problem with gradients and transformations.
> An angle is not an angle...
>
> - linear gradients' angles are counted counter-clockwise [1]
>
> - rotations are counted clockwise [2]
>
> Since gradients are not everywhere on the web YET, I hope we still can
> change things here. So naive questions:
>
> a) why that difference? Unintentional?
> b) can we make both angles here mean the same thing and both
>   rotate clockwise? Or both counter-clockwise?

The difference was unintentional, in that I didn't *mean* for it to be
different from other properties.  But I did specially intend for it to
be as it is, with 0deg pointing East and CCW being positive.  That's
how polar angles work, which I treated as the most common case of
directed angles.

suggested switching to bearing angles (0deg points North, CW is
positive).  I'm not particularly happy with this, but it does align
the usage with rotations in general, and with the few other properties
that actually use an angle as a direction.  So I'll be switching it in
the next draft.

Once I receive some final feedback, expected sometime this week, I'll
announce the planned syntax changes to gradients.

~TJ
```
Received on Monday, 20 September 2010 15:06:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:38 UTC