- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:07:55 -0700
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:48 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > In section 4.2.2 (Placing Color Stops), > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#radial-color-stops : > > Change axises -> axes I am morally opposed to Latin-inspired irregular pluralization introduced a century ago, when the regular form is still clear English. In other words, I'd like to assert editorial privilege over the spellings used in the document. > In section 4.2.3 (Degenerate Radial Gradients), > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#degenerate-radials : > > The first heading should probably say "a circle with zero radius" > rather than "a circle with zero width or height". In its > non-normative text, it should probably also mention (like the > second heading does) that all color-stop positions specified with > a percentage resolve to 0px. Done. > In section 4.3 (Repeating gradients), > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#repeating-gradients : > > I think this section ought to be clearer about how negative color > stops are handled for repeating radial gradients. The rules for > repeating in this section seem to contradict the earlier statement > that positions less than 0 have no effect on rendering in radial > gradients, since direct application of the repeating rules seems > to make them take up space and render. Why isn't this handled by the existing text? "When rendered, however, the color-stops are repeated infinitely in both directions, with their positions shifted by multiples of the difference between the last specified color-stop's position and the first specified color-stop's position." ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 22:08:46 UTC