- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:10:24 -0500
- 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 8:16 PM, Brad Kemper<brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > linear-gradient( > -87deg, > green 30%, > blue 20%, > navy > ) > This means: starting at a point 30% from the box top-left and going down and > slightly to the right, begin the gradation with green at 30% of the way from > that corner along that angle (towards where it would need to go at that > angle to fill the opposite corner). Then 20% down from the box top-left, it > should be blue. Then the gradation ends with navy at the end of that angled > path (a line of navy that intersects the lower right corner). Argh, you're still not making any sense. You can't start the gradient 30% from the top, then continue it 20% from the top, and end it 100% from the top. That's a zigzag. >_< > Did you > intend to write "blue 50%"? > > OK. I see. 30% + 20% would be closer to where her blue is. Sure. Me > math-adverse sometimes. So, you *did* mean to write "blue 50%"? Or did you really mean that you want to be able to write "blue 20%" in that situation and have it really mean that blue should start 50% down from the top? ~TJ
Received on Saturday, 15 August 2009 05:11:18 UTC