- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:53:48 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Martin McNickle <mmcnicklebugs@googlemail.com>, Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Aug 14, 2009, at 10:31 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Martin > McNickle<mmcnicklebugs@googlemail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 09:34 -0500, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>> Am I missing anything? Am I making anything too complex? Are there >>> ways to improve this/make it simpler/make it prettier? >> >> Given that a large number of these gradients will be simple >> vertical/horizontal ones, you could make the following >> simplification: >> >> <gradient-line>: >> [ >> <angle> [inner | outer]? >> | >> [ left | right | top | bottom ] [ left | right | top | bottom ]? >> | >> <bg-position>, <bg-position> >> ] >> >> where the second keyword is now optional. >> >> When the second keyword is omitted, you assume the opposite side. >> >> So: >> >> background: linear-gradient(top, yellow, blue); >> background: linear-gradient(top bottom, yellow, blue); >> >> are equivalent as are: >> >> background: linear-gradient(right, yellow, blue); >> background: linear-gradient(right left, yellow, blue); >> >> The syntax for producing a simple vertical/horizontal gradient is >> now very succinct. > > Ooh, good idea. That also makes it congruent with the corner syntax, > where you just specify one corner and the opposite is assumed. I've > changed the proposal to reflect that. > > ~TJ If you have named sides (like you do) and named corners (something like border-radius has in its 4 names), then you don't need to mention the opposite side at all. You also then don't need to use the bg- position coordinate system with its possibility of 4 lengths separated by another comma.
Received on Friday, 14 August 2009 17:54:31 UTC