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

Re: [CSS3] linear-gradient() proposal

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:06:54 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimyBSTMGiEut=86FNkPkL3ajn1-vZ+GPYP09QnJ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>, Andrew Fedoniouk <andrew.fedoniouk@live.com>, www-style@w3.org
Hi Tab,

> The "length" of the gradient does change if the gradient is
> transitioned to a different angle, but I think that's desirable in at
> least some cases, and in the cases where it's not, you can usually get
> around that just be specifying the color-stop offsets using lengths
> instead of percentages.  The cases that are left unsatisfied are, I
> believe, less of a problem than the rotation speed "wobble" that is
> solved by this interpretation.

yes, this is the issue that I had in mind.
I agree that it's not a major issue since not many page will use this
effect. I just brought it up because it pointed to a side effect of the
current gradient proposal.
This side effect is also the issue that Andrew is seeing.

> It's unfortunately impossible to satisfy every case without overly
> complicating the syntax; we could offer more in languages like
> Javascript or SVG that can absorb the complexity, but CSS is supposed
> to be as simple as possible to use.
It's hard to determine what is easier. I personally think that the current
proposal is more complicated than a vector but that's probably because I
only dealt with gradients from the coding side.
However, past discussions have shown that people like the current approach
better so even though it has its drawbacks, the easy-of-use is more

Received on Monday, 28 March 2011 06:07:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:44 UTC