- From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:53:58 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Sep 20, 2010, at 8:05 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Daniel Glazman > <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote: >> Guys, I have a (light) problem with gradients and transformations. >> An angle is not an angle... >> >> - linear gradients' angles are counted counter-clockwise [1] >> >> - rotations are counted clockwise [2] >> >> Since gradients are not everywhere on the web YET, I hope we still can >> change things here. So naive questions: >> >> a) why that difference? Unintentional? >> b) can we make both angles here mean the same thing and both >> rotate clockwise? Or both counter-clockwise? > > The difference was unintentional, in that I didn't *mean* for it to be > different from other properties. But I did specially intend for it to > be as it is, with 0deg pointing East and CCW being positive. That's > how polar angles work, which I treated as the most common case of > directed angles. > > That said, there was a recent thread about this, where fantasai > suggested switching to bearing angles (0deg points North, CW is > positive). Here's the thread, for reference. <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0169.html> Simon
Received on Monday, 20 September 2010 15:54:54 UTC