Re: Gradients by angle (was Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2009-08-12)

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:57 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:

> On Friday 2009-08-14 10:45 +1200, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> > Then I suggest we just require two points and allow an optional angle as
> > well. Linear gradients really have "start lines" and "end lines"; we
> define
> > the start line of the gradient as the line that passes through the start
> > point which is perpendicular to the given angle, and the end line of the
> > gradient is the line that passes through the end point which is
> > perpendicular to the given angle. The angle defaults to the angle of the
> > line from the start point to the end point.
>
> That seems reasonable.
>
> But I think another option would be an angle with *zero* points,
> where the points are implicitly the corners of the background
> positioning area, and which otherwise matches your formula.


OK, making the points optional if there's an angle makes sense I guess. You
want to choose the corners based on the angle the way Brad does?

Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
53:5-6]