W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2011

Re: magic corner gradient revisited

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 14:22:58 -0700
Message-Id: <69751795-3CE2-4BB2-B0CE-CD1FF2493179@gmail.com>
Cc: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On Aug 8, 2011, at 9:38 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Ok, so your concern is whether we should change how the angle syntax renders?
>> Because "strictly corner-to-corner or side-to-side" is all that CSS3 Gradients keywords have represented since I've started looking at the EDs/WDs.
>> My proposal was to produce the "magic rendering" by mapping the side and corner keyword syntax to an angle appropriate for the ratio of the associated box, and then rendering *exactly* with the angle algorithm that's already documented in the spec.
>> Presumably I'm missing something w/r/t your consternation.
> No, my concern was simply that we might back ourselves into a corner,
> syntax-wise, by addressing magic corners in the simplest possible
> manner.
> Though, if something like "to top left" is acceptable, I'll go ahead
> and do it.  You'd better pass the testsuite, though.  ^_^

You and I were OK with that ("to top left"), but I can't find where Brian said he could live with that. I hope he can, as it is a direction to head to, instead of a side. 

I don't think we are backing ourselves in a corner wrt "magic corners".  In theory, a future version could add 'contain | cover' keywords ("magic" = cover), but I really think they are unneeded, and I think we'll verify that after this one is a rec and people find it very usable. 
Received on Monday, 8 August 2011 21:23:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:03 UTC