Re: Gradient syntax proposal

On Aug 15, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> (I'll note in passing, though, that several of these - 2, 4, 5, 11,
> 13, 15, and 16 - actually *don't* specify the same thing.  2 and 5
> have the ending point defaulting to somewhere in the opposite corner
> and will produce diagonal gradients, 4 will make an image that's
> simply 20% green and 80% blue, 11 produces way too long of a fade
> between green and blue, and the other three are all wrong because
> using a side keyword by itself means the center of that side, and so
> they'll produce a diagonal gradient.)

I did throw the list together rather quickly, with a lot of copy- 
paste, and probably forgot to change some numbers. But I'm also pretty  
sure I left some out.

It just goes to show how much confusion the longer syntax can create.  
And I am a reasonably intelligent person, immersed in CSS, who's been  
looking at your syntax for the last few days. And I still get thrown  
by it, mostly by having to translate between box-side-based  
percentages and and percentages based on the gradient path within a  
possibly smaller space. The property does not need the added complexity.