RE: [css3-images] linear-gradient keywords and angles are opposite

So consistency with Photoshop is more important than being consistent with CSS transforms or SVG ? If so, why is it so much more important for gradients than for these other features that it justifies the inconsistency ?

Think of a clock or a compass; should animating from top to right map to moving from 6pm to 9pm ? What is natural about that ?

There are other issues unrelated to what keywords map to which we don't need to go into here.
________________________________________
From: www-style-request@w3.org [www-style-request@w3.org] on behalf of Philippe Wittenbergh [ph.wittenbergh@l-c-n.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 6:46 PM
To: Sylvain Galineau
Cc: Brian Manthos; Brad Kemper; www-style@w3.org list; Tab Atkins Jr.
Subject: Re: [css3-images] linear-gradient keywords and angles are opposite

On Jun 9, 2011, at 9:44 AM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:

> It's important to note here that we are not just talking about static gradient
> backgrounds but the animation of their value. It turns out there are number of
> issues in those scenarios, of which this is one.


Ok, I found back the issue with animation you are referring to

> 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.
(earlier in this thread)

That is assuming that 0deg points up and 90deg points right-wards. Most designers I know are more familiar with the Photoshop gradients (0deg is right-wards). That point has been made by Brad, vocally. And I support him in this.

I mean, I don't really see what the issue with animation or transition is.


Philippe
--
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://l-c-n.com/

Received on Thursday, 9 June 2011 05:32:57 UTC