- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 19:24:30 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Nov 4, 2011, at 6:28 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fantasai and I came to a consensus on the syntax we'd like to see:
>
> radial-gradient(<shape> to <extent> at <position>, <colors>)
>
> In Images 4, when we add the ability to change the focus point, it'll look like:
>
> radial-gradient(<shape> to <extent> at <position> [from <position> |
> from offset <length>{1,2}], <colors>)
>
> (Both of these grammars are approximate, and omit the details that
> make each piece optional and order-variable.)
>
> We chose this because 'from' really sounds like it should be
> specifying where the 0% color emerges from. Once that decision has
> been made, 'at' seems to be the best of the remaining options for
> specifying the center of the shape.
>
> Because the default size is cover, this means:
>
> * radial-gradient(from 25% 25%, <colors>) makes the 0% color at 25%
> 25%, and the 100% color is at a box-centered box-covering ellipse.
> * radial-gradient(at 25% 25%, <colors>) makes the 0% color at 25% 25%,
> and the 100% color at a 25% 25%-centered box-covering ellipse.
>
> Examples of the above can be seen on the wiki at
> <http://wiki.csswg.org/ideas/radial-gradient-readability>.
>
> How does this sound?
Logical, assuming it is important to include focal point shifting in a CSS4 version. That remains to be seen, but this keyword wording is reasonable for today's version.
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2011 02:31:17 UTC