- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:41:02 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
Brad Kemper wrote: > > On Aug 17, 2009, at 8:15 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > >> Also, if you haven't seen it in a while, I've upgraded the CSS on my >> document viewer (from "none" to "some"), so it's actually halfway >> pleasant to read now. >> >> http://www.xanthir.com/document/document.php?id=d65df9d10442ef96c2dfe5e1d7bbebf7aa42f2bcf24e68fc3777c4b484fa8a4ce55fed2189cac20ccad8686127f4c08917c4ca8b7614e9f89c2a950ec083a9c6 > > In your last example, you could get about the same gradient with this: > > |background: linear-gradient(-70deg / yellow 52px, blue (100% - 52px));| > > > ...if that was the effect you wanted, and you didn't have the extra (and > I would say unneeded) grammar of bg-position. > > My point is, it's cleaner and simpler not to have several different ways > to do the same thing. Simpler to learn, simpler to read, avoids > confusion about the different forms. > > I suggest we have a second slash for when people want to measure from > the apposing corner/side. So that the above could be written as: > > |background: linear-gradient(-70deg / yellow 52px / blue 52px);| > > ([<angle> | <side-or-corner>] / <color> <distance-or-%-from-start> > [,<color> <distance-or-%-from-start>]* [/ <color> > <distance-or-%-from-end> [,<color> <distance-or-%-from-end>]*]?) I think that's really confusing. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 17:42:03 UTC