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

Re: [css3-images] Syntax of <position> in radial-gradient()

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:58:39 -0800
Message-Id: <E22CE764-64C0-41F8-A33C-072BFBB1D1AD@gmail.com>
Cc: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>

On Nov 11, 2011, at 7:36 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com> wrote:
>> The "radial-gradient() Syntax" section currently says that <position> "is
>> defined as the positioning syntax of 'background-position'".
>> 
>> This is unclear. Why not say that it is equivalent to <bg-position> as
>> defined in css3-backgrounds?
> 
> Because the ED of B&B now uses the more generic term <position>.
> We'll push that to the CR draft at some point, since it's purely
> editorial.

Has radial-gradient always had the full CSS3 background-position syntax? I was under the impression it used the more limited two-part syntax of CSS 2.1 background-position. I don't think I've seen any examples in the spec or on this list with a four-part position, such as 'radial-gradient(ellipse at right 20px bottom 30px to 20px 30px, red, yellow, green)'. Maybe it was the lack of such examples that lead me to that mistaken belief. 

Also, your examples in the ED need to be updated with the new 'at' 'to' syntax, and should not end with semicolons (since they are not property declarations in your examples).
Received on Friday, 11 November 2011 16:59:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:46 GMT