- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:01:27 -0800
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 18, 2010, at 10:22 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > And then the computed value of the direction would always be an angle. Hrm, for some reason I didn't think of it in that terms. That should work just about as easily; rather than saying all the gradients are two-point underneath, they're all angle underneath. I don't like the keywords you have, though - I'd rather just restrict it to "[ [left | right] || [top | bottom] ]" and still parse it like a background position (that is, "left bottom" and "bottom left" both work and mean the same thing). This does make something that is strictly weaker than what exist currently, but I think it still hits the 90% mark, and the interpolation is somewhat prettier. And, like I wanted, it's still compatible with most gradients in practice. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 19 November 2010 00:02:20 UTC