W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2012

Re: [css4-images] Color stop syntax

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 10:56:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDDozEkL6_mdwo0jeONY0AaBRZBW8=S3_n9PMbMawZaO8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 6:06 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>> On 09/23/2012 07:20 AM, Lea Verou wrote:
>>> Itís only a pair now, in the future it might be extended to allow for more
>>> things.
>>> For example, Rik Cabanier recently suggested in a discussion we had that
>>> it might
>>> be useful to allow an optional midpoint, like Adobe products traditionally
>>> supported.
>>> Of course, in that case, a specific relative order would be necessary,
>>> since they
>>> would both be of the same type.
>>
>> I want to suggest handling that as a color stop without a specified color,
>> and having that mean 'average the two colors before/after me'. That *is*
>> equivalent to having a "midpoint", isn't it?
>
> That's interesting!  It's a logical extension of the current "omitted
> position" treatment, where the positions get distributed evenly
> between the two surrounding explicitly-positioned things.  I like it.
>
> Only problem is that you can't omit the color from the first and last
> stops, like you can when omitting position.  Not a huge deal, though.
>

Placing a midpoint at the beginning or ending wouldn't make sense anyway.

I'm surprised that a change such as this is still OK. If we can still
make changes, can we also get rid of the whole notion of premultiplied
alpha and just special case 'transparent'?
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2012 17:56:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:01 GMT