Re: [css3-images] Proposed Gradients changes

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> Brad Kemper
> On Nov 18, 2010, at 6:20 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 18, 2010, at 4:01 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 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).
>>>
>>> I won't put quite as much energy into debating that, as we are now much closer to agreement than before. :)
>>>
>>> I do still prefer one keyword rather than 3-5.
>>
>> It's 1-2, actually.  No endpoint, because the endpoint is inferred,
>> just like it is in the current syntax.
>
> Yeah, I'm not a fan of that either. It lacks obviousness. "bottom left" doesn't look anything like a direction. I like thinks that are clear, as well as simple. Having a single keyword ( or even two, with a "to" to connect them) that refers to corners the way English speakers and border-radius does would satisfy that much better, even though it is a bit more typing. After all, even "bottom" is more typing than "90deg". If the purpose of using words line "bottom", "top", "left", and "right" is to make it more clear without having to understand and perform an extra step of indirection, then inferring an unwritten point should be thrown out too.

Shrug; it's just exactly what's allowed right now, and people seem to
understand it pretty well.

~TJ

Received on Friday, 19 November 2010 17:28:02 UTC