- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 17:47:58 -0700
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
why isn't the starting point for a radial linear gradient "those point(s) on a line perpendicular to the gradient angle, in the most negative position possible, that still just fit(s) within the shape to be filled"? On Sep 7, 2010, at 16:01 , Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote: >> On Sep 7, 2010, at 2:20 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>> Anybody have any strong objection to me switching the <angle> >>> reference to Bearing Angles? >> >> Not I, but it's a shame that an angle of zero will go up, rather than down, making >> it a less than useful default combined with a starting point of 'top'. > > I've expressed before that I think it would be really bad to try and > default *any* static position for the starting-point of an angle > gradient. No matter what point you choose, it'll only be actually > useful for roughly a quarter of the circle at most. I'm strongly of > the opinion that the current starting-point magic for angle gradients > is necessary to make it useful for authors without requiring > nearly-always-redundant information. > > 'top' in particular would be a *really bad* starting-point for angle > gradients. The only barely-reasonable static starting-points are the > four corners. > > ~TJ > David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2010 00:48:31 UTC