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

Re: [css3-images] Summary of recent gradient issues

From: divya manian <divya.manian@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:02:56 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTims4Bs_WuemeUWXVXCgsbsgcyrJ-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> That sounds pretty good.  So we'd have:
>
> linear-gradient(to top right, black, white)
>
> being in the same direction as:
>
> linear-gradient(45deg, black, white)
>

I think it is a mistake to tie degree representation of the gradient line to
the keyword representation of it. Keywords solve the problem of getting
gradient lines diagonal to the box they are on but do not serve any other
purpose. As such, my view is keywords should not be considered to possess an
equivalent radial representation and the spec should make this clear.

I also think CSS authors are familiar by now of the top, right, bottom, left
keywords. This intuitively suggests the beginning position. Using the 'to'
keyword would beg the question, why there is no equivalent 'to' keywords
elsewhere in CSS (also should there be a 'from'?). I think it introduces
additional complexity that could be avoided.

In my view, this:

linear-gradient(top left indianred, 50% midnightblue, right mistyrose);

would be something that would be understandable, given we make similar
assumptions of default keyword values for background-position
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background/#the-background-position
Received on Friday, 17 June 2011 14:03:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:41 GMT