Re: [css3-images] remaining gradient issues

On Jul 26, 2011, at 4:06 PM, Brian Manthos wrote:

> Brad:
>> Well I, for one, found term "gradient vector" an unfamiliar and mathy way
>> of talking about direction. Anyone can understand what a line is though,
>> and that it can be described by endpoints and direction.
> Incorrect.
> (1) A line does not have a direction.  You might argue it has two directions, but it definitely does not have exactly 1 direction. 
> (2) A line does not have endpoints; instead it extends infinitely.  A line can be indicated by expressing two points that it passes through.  A line *segment* has endpoints.
> (3) "mathy" --  More specifically it's geometry.  Without geometry, it's a bit difficult to talk about gradients at all.  

I've talk about gradients with other authors, without ever using the term "vector" or "segment" and I've never encountered any resulting confusion (I doubt that throwing the word "vector" into the conversation would have clarified it to those I conversed with). "Starting point", "ending point", and "angle" are understandable, and direction can be understood as a result of using those words.

> Much of CSS uses both "general math" and specifically geometry.  Are you suggesting we stop using one or both of them going forward for CSS?  

Of course not. I'm suggesting that authors do not necessarily think and speak in the same way as spec writers, and I contest that "gradient vector" is an intrinsically better notion for authors than "keyword means starting point" if it is clear enough that keywords DO means starting point. They are just two different ways to describe direction.

Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 23:37:00 UTC