Re: radial-gradient() proposal

On Nov 5, 2009, at 6:53 AM, Simon Fraser wrote:

> 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.

Sorry, but I could not disagree more. I'd say by far, specifying the  
angle would be the easiest, easiest to read and understand, and most  
common way to want to specify a linear gradient. I personally loath  
the "4 offsets" way of specifying beginning and ending endpoints,  
because it adds so much unneeded verbosity, and decreases clarity and  
understanding.  In practice, most blends (and I do mean almost all)  
will be either from edge-to-edge (or corner-to-corner), or will start  
or end some distance from one of those edges or corners in a way that  
can be specified more clearly and succinctly in the stops.

I do not find anything even slightly confusing about using angles to  
specify a linear angle in the way they've been diagrammed in geometry  
classes since forever. I would find it completely counter-intuitive to  
have 0deg or 90deg represent any other directions than that for  
gradients. For rotations, I can appreciate both sides of the argument,  
but if one really has to change I would prefer it to be rotation to  
match gradients, and not the other way around.

Received on Thursday, 5 November 2009 15:19:42 UTC