- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:55:03 -0500
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:47 PM, fantasai<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > Brad Kemper wrote: >> >> On Aug 13, 2009, at 4:35 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >>> Just linear gradients for now: >>> >>> >>> http://www.xanthir.com/document/document.php?id=d65df9d10442ef96c2dfe5e1d7bbebf7aa42f2bcf24e68fc3777c4b484fa8a4ce55fed2189cac20ccad8686127f4c08917c4ca8b7614e9f89c2a950ec083a9c6 >>> >>> ~TJ >>> >> >> I won't get into my objections to [inner | outer] right now, but about the >> rest of this: > > We could make the default 'outer', which should address your concerns, no? > > I'd use the keywords 'inside' and 'outside', btw. I think they fit better, > and also they're already in the parsing system (for list-style-position). I have no problem with either of these suggestions. >> One of the things I really hate about using "<bg-position>, <bg-position>" >> is that comma to separate the two lengths or keywords on the left from those >> on the right. Since commas are already being used to separate color-stops, >> this just makes the whole thing harder to read, because they are no longer >> used consistently to group like things. When they are used only for >> color-stops, then you can see in a glance how many color-stops there are >> instead of having to study it more closely with a line full of distances and >> commas. For instance, I find the following very hard to read, and it >> probably doesn't even make sense (which is another problem with this kind of >> construction). >> |linear-gradient(10px 30%, 100% 4%, 50% green, 20% blue)| > > I completely agree. How about using a keyword? > > linear-gradient(10px 30% to 100% 4%, green, blue 20%, navy); > > For simpler cases you'd get > > linear-gradient(left to right, green, blue, navy); I like the "to" keyword for the <bg-position> construction! It expresses the relationship very nicely. Using it on the simpler construction is nice and literate, but sort of unnecessary; I think "linear-gradient(left, green, blue, navy)" is pretty clear? > We could also use some other punctuation instead of that first comma, e.g. > > linear-gradient(10px 30% to 100% 4% / green, blue 20%, navy); > linear-gradient(left to right / green, blue, navy); > > But it's not really necessary. The comma could even be dropped if we > forbid the first percentage. > > /* This is ok and parseable */ > linear-gradient(left to right green, 50% blue, 100% navy); > > /* Invalid b/c ambiguous with 'right 0%' position syntax*/ > linear-gradient(left to right 0% green, 50% blue, 100% navy); Gah, I still really hate dropping the first comma. Separating the direction from the color-stops with a slash looks nice, though. I think I like it! Imma go edit my draft real quick. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 14 August 2009 20:56:05 UTC