- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 23:03:08 -0700
- To: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
- CC: W3C Emailing list for WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com> wrote:
>> "The transition must be contained within the segment of the border
>> where the tangent of the inner curve either not defined or is not
>> parallel with the sides of the box."
>>
>> It is not clear what does "tangent of the inner curve not defined"
>> mean exactly. Is it an attempt to define case #9 here? :
>>
>> http://www.terrainformatica.com/w3/round-corners-sciter.png
>> (case: width of borders is larger than border radius)
>
> That's how I read it. The tangent is undefined at a sharp corner.
> Thus, in your case #9, the gradients can extend to the points where the
> outer and inner edges become parallel lines again.
>
> Perhaps that's better wording? Something like
>
> The transition may not include any region of the border which is
> visually "side" rather than "corner": formally, the transition may
> not include any region where the inner and outer edges are parallel
> straight lines.
>
> I'm having trouble coming up with words that are both unambiguous and
> plain, so I think a diagram would be helpful; maybe something like the
> attached SVG file.
Thanks for that but what about this case:
div.case10
{
width:10%;
height:60px;
border:30px solid;
border-radius: 60px/20px;
}
?
I am getting this (content updated):
http://www.terrainformatica.com/w3/round-corners-sciter.png
Cool of course but is the right way of doing this?
>
>> I believe that the only reasonable type of gradient here is so called
>> conic gradient. Probably it makes sense to define just that?
>
> I'd call that out of scope for Level 3. There are several shipping
> implementations that do sharp transitions.
>
I am not asking to remove optionality of gradient.
--
Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Sunday, 23 August 2009 06:03:42 UTC