W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Gradient syntax proposal

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:16:25 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0908141516t71d56492g30ff720db0554610@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Brad Kemper<brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 14, 2009, at 1:47 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?
> If others really think this is necessary and are willing to add this extra
> complexity, yes.

I've changed the default to 'outside'.

If implementors don't like it, I can always remove the keyword.  I
just think it would be useful to me.

>> 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).
>>> 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);
> Do you really think people will really need to start on such a precise xy
> point instead of just some distance or percentage from the corner? I don't,
> but maybe calc() can be used to figure that distance from the corner.
> If I wanted to start say, 30% from the top, and end at the bottom, I would
> write that as "linear-gradient(top, green 30%, blue 20%, navy)". Or if I
> wanted to be a few degrees off from straight down, I would do
> "linear-gradient(-87deg, green 30%, blue 20%, navy)". I think these are both
> much cleaner, and provide all that an author will really need.

All right, changed my mind.  That looks confusing as *hell*.  It looks
like you meant to write "blue 20%, green 30%, navy" but swapped them
for some reason.  I don't like it at all.

>>  linear-gradient(left to right green, 50% blue, 100% navy);
> That's very close to what I suggested, except for the "to right" part

Yeah, but allowing the literate form (in addition to the short "left"
form) makes a *wonderful* parallel to the full <bg-position>
construction, so it's easy to learn and understand.  This suggestion
from Elika was a definite win in my mind.

Though, it'd be written with a "/" between the direction and the
color-stops in my current proposal.

Received on Friday, 14 August 2009 22:17:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:38 UTC