Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-logical][css-images] flow-relative gradients (#1724)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-logical][css-images] flow-relative gradients`.

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;TabAtkins> oriol: Currently, in linear-gradient() you can specify an angle with physical keywords (to right)<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> oriol: Proposal was to also allow a logical side keywords<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> oriol: block-start/etc for sides<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> oriol: For corners, use same as border-radius, start-start, start-end, etc. First refers to block axis, second to inline.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> oriol: Second part of the proposal was about logical angles.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: I don't think this is quite the right way. Gradient uses `to &lt;position>`, should continue, just with the extended &lt;position> we put into BG 4<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: this is different than what Oriol is saying. It allows for logical/physical combos.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: You can do purely physical (top left, etc). Axis is physical, direction in that axis is physical. You can also do purely logical.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: But extended position also allows mixed - axis is physical, but direction in that axis is logical.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: Oriol's suggested syntax doesn't allow for that and is inconsistent with the &lt;position> syntax in general.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: So we should use extended &lt;position><br>
&lt;fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-backgrounds-4/#the-background-position<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> oriol: I'm not as familiar with this extended &lt;position>. Not sure how it works when you combine physical and logical.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> oriol: Seems hard to reason about.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: Syntax is straightforward, it's documented there. If we don't like it, we should change it here, for everything. Shouldn't do different things for gradients and backgrounds.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: But I do think this is the way we want to go.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> +1 to fantasai, at bare minimum we should be consistently using &lt;position>, even if we end up wanting to change how we do logical &lt;position>.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> oriol: I'd like to review the BG 4 syntax since i"m not familiar with it<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: I think it's fine to delay a bit more for review<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: not a high priority<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> miriam: Ok, take back to the issue.<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1724#issuecomment-1551733937 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2023 16:41:20 UTC