Re: [css3-images] Linear gradients feedback

On Sep 7, 2010, at 11:15 PM, fantasai wrote:

> On 09/07/2010 09:43 PM, Simon Fraser wrote:
>> On Sep 7, 2010, at 8:15 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:59 PM, fantasai<>  wrote:
>>>> And you'd rather use a comma than "to"? I think it's clearer to use "to"
>>>> since we're separating the colors with commas.
>>> I prefer commas because it's more consistent, and it's how nearly
>>> every programming language does functions, particularly javascript.
>>>> While we're at it, the use of a comma to separate the geometry from the
>>>> colors also bothers me for the same reason.
>>>> How about
>>>> linear-gradient(<position>  [to<position>]? as<color>,<color>, ...)
>>>> ?
>>> That seems even worse to me.  ^_^
>>>> If the problem is DOM access, why not define different interfaces for
>>>> them (LinearBoxGradient and LinearAngleGradient), but leave the parsed
>>>> syntax the same?
>>> That's smfr's call.  What do you think, Simon?  Would that be sufficient?
>> It doesn't help with interpolation for animation.
> And how would different functional notation improve that?
> It's just notation.

It's for ease of author understanding. It's easier to say "only functions of the same
time can be interpolated" than "a linear-gradient using an angle cannot be interpolated
with a linear-gradient that doesn't use one", especially if we fall into the "angle" or
"non-angle" variants in non-obvious cases.


Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2010 16:56:12 UTC