- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:24:53 -0500
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: David Perrell <davidp@hpaa.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Brad Kemper<brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > This is something that should be consistent with linear gradients. If I say > that I want a 45% angle, does that assume a square that can be resized to a > non-square, thus changing the angle dependent on the aspect ratio of the > background area? So far, we have been assuming that even though the "image" > would be sized to all different dimensions, that the angle and the fixed > lengths would stay constant. Correct - that has been my assumption, modulo you changing the ratio with background-size. > Perhaps we should just have a keyword to indicate if that is true or not. If > not, then 45% becomes the same as 'bottom left to top right', and could be > written much shorter. The same word would control if the shape was a circle > or an oval (if only one radius is given, or no degrees). Background-size > would do all the heavy lifting. Note that in linear-gradient() I've gone ahead and eliminated to "to <bg-positon>" bit, so it's just "top left". However, I don't like making the image-generating function depend on things specified outside of it. That means that the exact same gradient code (or whatever) works differently based on context. I want to avoid that if possible. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2009 19:25:47 UTC