- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 09:02:30 -0700
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sep 7, 2010, at 3:58 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>>> This makes the gradient syntax the odd one out. Therefore its use of angles >>>> should be >>>> a) defined in the prose somewhere instead of implied by illustration >>>> b) use the Bearing Angle Method, i.e. 0deg points up and angles increase >>>> clockwise >>>> >>>> Furthermore, the CSS3 Values and Units module should make this convention >>>> explicit so that later spec-writers don't make the same mistake. (Also, >>>> the outdated reference to ACSS and the 0-360 normalization requirement >>>> should be removed.) >>> >>> Argh, I was hoping I could avoid this, but it seems like I maybe can't. ;_; >>> >>> Anybody have any strong objection to me switching the <angle> >>> reference to Bearing Angles? >>> >>> ~TJ >>> >> >> Yes. > > Yes, you have a strong objection? Can you elaborate? Yes, and I will more fully, soon. But for starters, I don't consider the gradient direction to be a bearing. A bearing is an angular deviation from north or from forward, typically. Nor is it a rotation of some default angle, in most folks mind, I believe, even though I think that is how SVG folks view it. I've been put some stuff together about this, stressing simplicity and familiarity (among graphic designers and other "normals"). Please give me a few days to make it presentable.
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2010 16:03:06 UTC