W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2010

Re: [css3-images] Linear gradients feedback

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 12:33:42 -0700
Message-ID: <4C869396.4020900@inkedblade.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 08/30/2010 12:42 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Simon Fraser<smfr@me.com>  wrote:
>> On Aug 29, 2010, at 9:56 am, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> tl;dr: I've added instructions for serializing gradients.  I want to
>>> add an ending-point argument to linear-gradient(), and change the
>>> color transitions to happen in pre-multiplied rgba space.
>>> Simon and I recently had a twitter conversation about issues keeping
>>> him from wanting to implement the draft gradient syntax in Webkit.
>>> One of the issues was that gradients didn't have a defined
>>> serialization.  I've now defined this in the draft.
>>> Another issue was that linear-gradient() had too much "magic".  There
>>> is explicitly different behavior for all four combinations of
>>> specified and omitted values in the first argument.  He'd prefer that
>>> the syntax have more regular behavior, such that a missing value is
>>> just filled in with a default value.  He sent an email to this effect
>>> back during the original syntax discussions:
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Nov/0050.html
>>> After thinking it through, I believe his complaint is valid, though I
>>> strongly disagree with the fix he proposes in that email.  Instead,
>>> I'd like to add an additional argument to the linear-gradient() syntax
>>> - another<bg-position>  given as the second argument to the function,
>>> for specifying an ending-point for the gradient.
>> Here's the current draft, for those following:
>> <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#linear-gradients>
>> It currently has:
>>   linear-gradient([<bg-position>  ||<angle>,]?<color-stop>,<color-stop>[,<color-stop>]*);
>> and you're suggesting (I think; my grammar is weak):
>>   linear-gradient([<bg-position>  <bg-position>? ||<angle>,]?<color-stop>,<color-stop>[,<color-stop>]*);

Why aren't we using the grammar at the bottom of
? I think that's much more straightforward.

Received on Tuesday, 7 September 2010 19:34:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:49:47 UTC