Re: radial-gradient() proposal

Brad Kemper wrote:
> 
>>> http://www.bradclicks.com/cssplay/simpler_gradient.png
>>>
>>> And then, since this "image" is really dimensionless (not necessarily 
>>> square in usage), the angle and fixed distances would be free to 
>>> resize and and become different angles, just as they would if this 
>>> was an EPS file (if the UA supported EPS).
>>
>> Wait, you're suggesting that if the author specifies an angle, it 
>> might not use that angle if the gradient is drawn into a box with a 
>> different aspect ratio? That seems counter-intuitive.
> 
> If I resize any other image in a browse or any other software, the 
> contents also resize to the new dimensions, no matter how distorted 
> (assuming the software allows me to change the aspect ratio of the 
> image). As the aspect ratio changes, so does the angle of any lines in 
> the image (except for multiples of 90deg). That is totally intuitive.
> 
> So, if you just assume a square when specifying the angle, the results 
> of fitting the square to other aspect ratios is completely predictable. 
> It bcemes exactly like an eps file in a page layout program

I strongly disagree with disregarding the angle here. If I specify an
angle, I should get that angle, not some random transformation of it
depending on the size of the box. If I want the gradient to size with
the box, then I should specify it in start and end points because those
are defined to be relative to the box.

> In the cases where you want something else, then you are asking for 
> magic, something that makes this different from most other images. I say 
> do ghat with a keyword.

Changing the angle when I give an angle is considerably more "magic"
than actually drawing the angle I specified.

~fantasai