Re: Linear gradients: state of the proposal

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2009, at 10:50 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure I understand how the angle would flex, and currently
>> believe I would find it *very* confusing if I said "45deg" and ended
>> up with a gradient that wasn't a straight diagonal.
>
> The idea is that the spec would make it clear that you are specifying the
> angle as though on a square, but that the final image is dimensionless and
> could (would) be stretched and distorted. Just as though you created a
> square image in Photoshop with a 45deg gradient, and then resized the image
> (except you would have resolution independance).

Ah, I see.  Yeah, I'm really not happy with doing that.  It's a level
of abstraction that I believe would be confusing and, frankly, has
zero benefit.  Right now I say directly what the size of the 'box' is
that the gradient uses to size itself, and I think that it's useful
the way it is.

~TJ