- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:55:55 -0800
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- CC: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Brad Kemper wrote: > On Nov 6, 2009, at 11:07 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> > wrote: > >> 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. > > So have you considered the advantages and still disagree with the notion > of having a switch between two different modes? Or are you just > rejecting the entire notion out of hand because you disagree that the > default mode should be "act more like other images"? I strongly disagree that the default mode should be to "act like a resized image, even if it means disregarding that the author explicitly gave an angle". One of the advantages of doing gradients in CSS is that you draw the gradient into the size of the final box: there's no need to draw it into a square and then resize. This is why mixing percentages and lengths works. (Or really, why lengths work at all.) As for a switch to draw the gradient into a square box before resizing it to actual size... that seems rather silly. I suppose I might be convinced otherwise, but I don't understand why you wouldn't want to just pick two points. ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 6 November 2009 22:56:32 UTC