- From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 23:28:24 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Tab: >Brian: >> B. My interpretation of this phrasing suggests that “negative distances” in >> a linear gradient *are* displayed. I’d like to see an example where that is >> the case. > >The way that 0% and 100% points are calculated on a gradient, you >never see anything beyond them currently. Slight correction on this one... For radial, you see colors beyond 100% except in the "cover" case. Hence the focus on < 0% in my question. :) Tab: >Brian: >> My understanding is that gradient calc percentages resolve as follows … >> D1. <color-stop> (all 4 flavors): percentages resolve relative to the length >> of the gradient-line (segment) >> D2. <angle> (both linear flavors): percentages invalid >> D3. <position> (both radial flavors): match background-position behavior >> D4. <length> (both radial flavors): the same as <percentage> >> D5. <percentage> (both radial flavors): the same as without the calc() >> wrapper >Yes. In all of those, calc(5%) is identical to 5%. Ok, cool. Good to see my thinking was on target. Hopefully I can mentally map "calc(25% + 1em)" correctly as well.
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2011 23:28:52 UTC