On Nov 5, 2009, at 1:29 am, Brendan Kenny wrote: > Transforms have it right, it can just seem wrong to some at first > sight. Positive rotations go counterclockwise from "east," but when > mirrored downward to screen coordinates that becomes a clockwise > rotation. > > As for gradients, personally I think a given angle should produce a > similar rotation in the gradient as in a transform. I tried to think of a way of defining linear gradients such that the angle was an angular offset from the line specified by the two points, but that defeats the purpose of specifying the angle in the first place (the use case being to have a gradient at a fixed angle irrespective of box size). I'd be OK dropping angles from linear gradients. You can always get a fixed angle by specifying two points in pixel coordinates; what you lose is the ability to have a fixed angle gradient that automatically fills the box. I'm not sure if this would be a common use case. Simon
Received on Thursday, 5 November 2009 14:54:26 UTC