Re: Comments on gradients proposal

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Robert O'Callahan
<robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Robert O'Callahan
>> <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
>> >> The end point is the point on the gradient-line where a line drawn
>> >> perpendicular from that point would cross the furthest corner of the
>> >> box.
>> >
>> > What if the starting point is equidistant from two "furthest corners" of
>> > the
>> > box?
>>
>> That language may have to be cleaned up slightly.  Are you thinking of
>> a case like, say, a 100px by 100px box with the starting-point at 50px
>> 50px (so the starting-point is equidistant from all corners)?  What's
>> intended is that the "furthest corner" is the furthest *in the
>> direction of the gradient-line*.  It's still possible for this to  be
>> ambiguous as to which corner is referred to (frex, take the above box
>> and starting-point with an angle of 0deg, so that the NE and SE corner
>> are equally far), but in these cases the ending-point is the same no
>> matter which corner you choose.
>
>
> Ah, that is confusing because except for 0/90/180/270 degree angles, there
> is only one corner "in the direction of the gradient line". Right?

Yup.  Can you suggest any way to phrase that better?  Basically the
idea is just that the gradient-line is as long as possible while the
perpendicular is still intersecting the box.  It may be best to
rewrite it something like that.