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

RE: [css3-images] remaining gradient issues

From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:45:53 +0000
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9710FCC2E88860489239BE0308AC5D170FB9B9@TK5EX14MBXC264.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Brad:
> I understood very little of what you describe above.
> In any event, are you saying we should have a different
> rendering in a future version of gradients than in what
> this version ends up with once it makes it to REC?

As you've phrased it, no.

(1) The current rendering of corner-to-corner gradients is less appealing than the "reverse ratio" renderings that were discussed recently in the "Gradient Magic" thread.
(2) My last mail provides an algorithm for producing the "reverse ratio" renderings (unless I messed it up).
(3) There was discussion on Monday of moving corner-to-corner gradients out of the v3 module (and into the v4 module).
(3a) If we choose to move them, I recommend we consider (2) for the preferred corner-to-corner gradient rendering.
(3b) If we keep corner-to-corner gradients in v3 and the current rendering behavior stays through REC, then I withdraw my (2) proposal since it becomes a painful divergence in v4 which isn't worthwhile (unless we introduce a new magic/auto/whatever syntax).

>> Regarding Brad's proposal "add 'from' keyword".An equally
>> attractive and unattractive proposal is to add the 'to' keyword
>> instead.  I recommend against both approaches.
> Why? It is a simple, clarifying change in existing keyword text
> in a simple, usable model. I don't understand what you have
> against it. If 'bottom left' was nearly good enough, but a little
> ambiguous, then what do you have against adding a word to
> clarify the meaning?

It's verbose and cumbersome.

Left(wards), right(wards), down(wards), up(wards) - single words that succinctly and clearly indicate a direction for the gradient vector.  Using more words is just pollution.

Using pairings of these two words is just as succinct and clear.  Adding more words has additional cost and offers no additional value.


As hinted in my previous mail, I suspect the whole problem probably stems from an original "looseness of language".  If terms such  "gradient vector" were used rather than "gradient line", the backwards notion of "keyword means starting point" probably would have been avoided in the before time.
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 20:46:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:42 GMT