- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 13:47:37 -0500
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Brad Kemper<brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > And this does not strike you as adding a whole extra level of complexity > that is completely unnecessary, compared to just giving a single measurement > for each of the first or last stops along the gradient path? The total > (100%) gradient path length is going to be either the distance between two > corners, or a distance determined by an author-specified angle (the > "outside" distance). Any pointed plotted in a 2-dimensional space, as with > <bg-position>, can also be found in a line that intersects the gradient path > at a right angle. > > I would much rather err on the side of keeping the grammar simple, than on > adding complexity that would only matter tiny bit, and only then for a tiny, > tiny, tiny fraction of the times they are used. I'm not adding any complexities, and this is not directly related to gradients at all. If people can't easily understand the <bg-position> syntax they'll have trouble using it *in the background-position property*. This is nothing more and nothing less than an attempt to rephrase the explanation of <bg-position> in Backgrounds and Borders under the background-position property in a way that makes more sense. Do you have any comments about what I actually wrote? ~TJ
Received on Saturday, 22 August 2009 18:48:37 UTC