- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:10:46 -0800
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 02/25/2010 06:51 AM, Brad Kemper wrote: > Could you also live with #2? I kind of like the level of detail that's been put in > of what is to be suggested, if a vendor is going to attempt it, in order to provide > some minimal guidance. (as an aside, I would also add that on any border-radius in > which the inner edge of the corner has an effective radius of zero, then the tip of > the cone for the conic blend should align with that sharp corner.) I can also > imagine some simple tests similar to what's been described here. But if we don't > even mention the idea of a gradient blend at the corner, then we lose the ability > to provide guidance (and a minimal level of consistency) to any implementor who > wants to give it a shot. I don't mind removing all mention of gradients and leaving the transitions undefined. What I would like to do is to add an informative Appendix J that we can update to showcase various implementors' ideal corner joins via screenshots and mockups. Just having those illustrations show what's possible with gradients would be adequate guidance, I think. ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 19:11:22 UTC