W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2011

RE: [css3-images] Order of color-stop fixup

From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 23:22:58 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9710FCC2E88860489239BE0308AC5D1711BAC6@TK5EX14MBXC264.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Two corrections:
(1) Drop the e in the name. ;)
(2) I brought up an example suggesting we might want to be more explicit for calc.  I think the current rules are fine.

-----Original Message-----
From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tab Atkins Jr.
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 4:11 PM
To: www-style list
Subject: [css3-images] Order of color-stop fixup

Right now, the color-stop fixup rules are:

1. If the first and last color stops don't have a position, make them 0% and 100%.
2. If any color-stop is mis-ordered, shift it so it's not.
3. If any other color-stops don't have a position, evenly distribute them.

Our implementation experience showed that the ordering of #2 and #3 makes it slightly harder to do transitions of gradients.  We'd like to do as much of the transition on specified values as possible, and defer computations that need layout information until the very end.
As such, Shane (new CSSWG member, dude who's doing the experimenting with gradient transitions) suggested I swap steps 2 and 3, and further make transitions operate *before* step 3, so the fixup is really a super-final step done *just* before image generation.

Separately, Brian Mantheos brought up what I believe is the same concern, where he'd prefer to do step 3 before step 2.

I don't have a preference either way.  Both produce smooth transitions, they just result in slightly different positions for auto-placed color-stops sometimes.

Does anyone have objections to me swapping these two steps?


Received on Thursday, 11 August 2011 23:23:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:48 UTC