- 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