- From: James Elmore <James.Elmore@cox.net>
- Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:19:38 -0700
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: CSS <www-style@w3.org>
On Aug 18, 2009, at 10:27 PM, Brad Kemper wrote: > > On Aug 18, 2009, at 9:40 PM, David Perrell wrote: > >> background: linear-gradient(-70deg / yellow 52px / blue 52px); >> . >> . >> background: linear-gradient(20px 30px to right 20px bottom 30px / >> yellow, >> blue); >> --- >> >> Neither example is an easy read - the first could get very >> difficult with >> many color stops. > > So could the second. Oh wait, it already is. > > I'm just thinking there would be times when you wanted a gradient a > fixed distance from the end, not just the beginning, not > necessarily a mirror of the beginning measurement, so it would be > nice to have a way to specify that without a lot of calc(), which > is even harder to read. A second slash version doesn't seem so bad > for that. Basically just a slash instead of a comma there. > I was thinking last night (away from my beloved computer so I could not send immediately ;) and thought about the possibility of using negative numbers for both percentages and lengths. Positive values are distances / percentages of the length FROM THE START of the gradient line; negatives are FROM THE END of the line. This makes the gradient syntax simpler -- no extra slash. The developers will need to handle more 'overlap' possible problems -- especially with mixing lengths and percentages from both start and end, this could be harder. What do the rest of you think of this? It might be worthwhile to limit the negatives to the end of the list of color stops. E.g., after the first negative, all the rest MUST BE negatives or it is an error. This limits mixing negatives and positives and simplifies, somewhat, the problems. Personally, I prefer to allow any value, anywhere in the list of color stops, but could live with the above limitation. A scenario where developer(s) wanted to intermix positives and negatives would not be too hard to create, but at least allowing negatives (distances from the end of the gradient line) would reduce much of the need for calc's. </James>
Received on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 14:20:21 UTC