- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 08:59:43 -0700
- To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote: > Glazou reminded me in a tweet of another good reason that we should > strive to keep the different-behaving functions separate: the CSS OM. > We need to design gradients such that the properties exposed in the OM > are sensible, and behave predictably under modification. That's convincing. We just need a name, then. I'm hoping I can do this without resorting to "linear2-gradient()"... >> Using a combination of two positions and an angle is awkward, >>> because one of the points may no longer lie on the gradient >>> axis. That's why the point/angle/length combination seems more >>> natural here. >> >> Hmm, maybe. If, as you say, we make percentages in the <length> refer >> to the distance from the starting-point to the "line intersecting the >> corner" point, and make it default to 100%, I think that could be >> okay. >> >> I'd still want the starting-point to use the "corner in the opposite >> direction of the angle" smarts if left out, though. > > I'm ok with both of those. Cool. Brad, what do you think? ~TJ
Received on Friday, 3 September 2010 16:00:31 UTC