- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 12:49:41 -0800
- To: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de> wrote: > Tab Atkins Jr.: >> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Christoph Päper > > This was laying around in my outbox for months. I trimmed it down to just one correction of a misunderstanding. > >>> you already (…) allow negative values and values beyond 100%. If you define the angle for corner-only uses as towards the center of the rectangle, which is equivalent to using the opposing corner, as it is specified now, that would be usable for arbitrary starting points, too. >> >> I think that most linear gradients will go from one end of the box to the other. > > Sure. > >> I don't see what would be gained by this that would offset the fact that gradient now have to stretch from 0% to 200% to fill the box. > > They wouldn’t. I was just talking about the angle, not the start and end points. Ah, I gotcha. That makes more sense. In that case, I think it's somewhat confusing to specify a point and have it *not* refer to the 0% location. ^_^ For now I'll reject this suggestion, but I'm keeping the idea of more control over gradient angle under consideration. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 20:50:34 UTC