- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 16:59:50 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- CC: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
[Tab Atkins:] > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 7, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> > wrote: > >> Paraphrasing [1]: > >> When specified via angle, the angle can be understood as both the > >> direction ("toward the <angle>") and the ending point ("ends at > <angle>"). > >> > >> Paraphrasing [2] and [3]: > >> When specified via keyword, the keyword can be understood as both > >> opposite direction ("away from the <keyword(s)>") and the starting > >> point ("starts at > >> <keyword>"). > >> > >> Is it intentional that these two ways of specifying gradient-line are > >> opposite? > > > > I don't think they are. In [1], the angle determines the starting AND > > ending points. In [2] and [3], the ending point (and thus the > > direction) is determined by the starting point. I see no inconsistency. > > This was brought up during the ftf, and I think it's a valid point. > > In my head (and I expect in others'), when I think of what angle to use > for a gradient I do so by imagining a compass rose, with 0deg at the top, > 90deg to the right, etc. I then set the gradient angle by choosing which > angle I want the gradient to point toward. > > Similarly, if I imagine keywords, I do so with 'top' at the top, 'right' > at the right, etc. Now, though, I have to reverse how I deal with my > mental image - if I want the gradient to point up, I don't choose 'top', I > choose 'bottom'. > > I'm not sure if this is an important enough disconnect to justify changing > the keywords, but we brainstormed it a bit at the ftf. I don't think we > came up with any set of directional keywords that was sufficiently decent > to work as replacements, though. If anyone has any suggestions, please > speak up! The current front-runner is 'upward'/'rightward'/etc, which > isn't very good. Right; to expand on some of the feedback given at the f2f, it helps to think of animating or transitioning gradients in order to understand the disconnect. A safe - I think - working assumption is that CSS authors are very familiar with top/right/bottom/left and the spatial relationship between them. The question is whether the following would be natural to web authors: that transitioning a linear gradient from 0deg to 90deg is equivalent on the keyword side to going from bottom to left. In other words, given North==0deg and East==90deg, should transitioning from North to East be doable by transitioning from top to right ? I think many would answer this question in the affirmative. (And would love to see a poll on the question similar to the one done for the bearing angle issue). That top is a starting point but 0deg an end point is inconsistent; the inconsistency is hard to justify and even more confusing once animations are involved.
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 17:00:28 UTC