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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Sylvain Galineau
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 10:52 PM
> To: fantasai; www-style@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [css3-images] linear-gradient keywords and angles are
> opposite
> 
> Sorry, not sure I follow. Can you elaborate ? Actual use-cases backing
> up the model is what we are definitely after since that is the only way
> to demonstrate it to be better than alternatives. Thanks!
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: www-style-request@w3.org [www-style-request@w3.org] on behalf of
> fantasai [fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 8:40 PM
> To: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [css3-images] linear-gradient keywords and angles are
> opposite
> 
> On 06/09/2011 09:25 AM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> >
> > Why shouldn't top mean 'towards the top' and right 'towards the
> right' so
> > that transitioning from top to right is equivalent to going from 0deg
> to 90deg
> > on a bearing compass ? That seems perfectly coherent to me.
> 
> Because if my gradient has a fixed length (which is reasonably common
> for creating
> edge effects via background-image), the "towards the top"
> interpretation would
> place it at the bottom of the box.
> 
> I think *that* is counter-intuitive.
> 
> ~fantasai

It's not about the location after the gradient image, that's what background-position addresses.

It's about the direction the gradient flows as it progresses through the color stops.


Making a gradient "too small" is just one of a myriad of ways to make it look like you positioned it, but that's a completely separate potential concern.

Received on Thursday, 9 June 2011 07:32:46 UTC