- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 10:15:57 -0800
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> Aside from disagreeing that about allowing less-readable order, I still have a problem with having to write out 'ellipse' much more often. I used to be able to write this:
>
> radial-gradient(closest-corner, yellow, blue)
>
> But now I have to be longer and more explicit, like this:
>
> radial-gradient(ellipse to closest-corner, yellow, blue)
>
> That is a big downgrade, IMO. It could be solved with this:
>
> radial-gradient(
> [
> [ circle? <length>? ] | [ ellipse? <length>{2}? ] |
> [ [ circle | ellipse ] to]? <closest/farthest-corner-side>
> ]?
> [ at <position ]?
> , <color-stops>)
>
> I'd rather this be settled now, before last call, than to be objecting during last call, or waiting until there are more implementations using yet another syntax that could change again.
Huh? I don't understand. That's not true at all. There's no "to" in
the grammar, and you can always omit 'ellipse'.
"radial-gradient(closest-corner, yellow, blue)" is definitely valid
and does what you expect (the same thing as it did in the old WD
grammar).
(This wasn't true in the November ED grammar, either - you could write
"radial-gradient(to closest-corner, yellow, blue)".)
~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 18:16:45 UTC