- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 16:25:05 -0500
- To: David Perrell <davidp@hpaa.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 2:42 PM, David Perrell<davidp@hpaa.com> wrote: > Tab Atkins Jr.: > | http://www.xanthir.com/test-gradient.php?shape=skewellipse&width=2 > | 00&height=200&start=ffff00&end=0000ff > | http://www.xanthir.com/test-gradient.php?shape=quarter-circle&widt > h=200&height=200&start=ffff00&end=0000ff > > #1: yellow spotlight shining into a blue fog > #2: solar corona (expected of a simple radial gradient) I'm gonna take that as a vote for #2. > | I'm trying to decide if being able to specify the starting-position is > | useful or not. > > Start offset from ellipse position surely useful for someone. I'm sure it's useful for *someone*. The question is if it's useful enough to complicate the syntax and explanation with. Basically, starting-position and <length>-in-color-stop are incompatible, because the former skews things and distorts absolute distances. I either drop starting-position, or limit you to using % in radial color-stops. I'm opting for the former, as it'll keep radial-gradient() closer to linear-gradient and make it *much* easier to explain without dropping into formulas. > Plus something like 'reverse', like looking at the backside of the gradient? I'm not sure what you mean; can whatever this is be accomplished by reversing the color-stops? > And let's not neglect an optional eccentricity variable for each color stop. E.g.: > http://hpaa.com/csstest/radgrads.htm I really hope you're joking. ^_^ > (BTW, I found no compelling argument for tilted elliptical gradients.) Cool. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 1 September 2009 21:26:03 UTC