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

On Jun 9, 2011, at 9:54 PM, Florian Rivoal wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:11:22 +0900, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Jun 9, 2011, at 7:33 PM, "Florian Rivoal" <florianr@opera.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I think we should replace left with leftwards, top with upwards, etc. Some people might say that leftwards is an uglier word than left, but I am sure nobody will ever be confused about what it means.
>> 
>> That doesn't work out that well for corner to corner. "upper-rightwards"? Or "upwards rightwards"?
> 
> I was thinking of upwards rightwards. I fully agree it is ugly, but I like ugly better than ambiguous. As a candidate for something that's neither, what do you think of Fantasai's proposal of "<point> to <point>",

As long as we kept it to corners and sides, and not two sets of two lengths? My only problem with it then is how long it is. "bottom left to top right" is pretty wordy for something that can already include a LOT of text (if there are a lot of color stops with positions, for instance, inside a property like 'background' that can have multiple layers.

> which would give "bottom to right". Or just going back at "from <point>", which would give "from bottom left".

"from bottom left" is OK, if it helps.

>> But really, the ONLY reason we actually NEED the keywords is for the corner to corner cases. The single up, down, right, left cases can all be written as degree directions. If not for corner to corner, you could just use a single type of notation for all directions, and do away with ambiguous keywords. Simplify.
> 
> True.
> 
>> Which is why I had originally proposed sticking with a single way to specify any direction (degrees), and just add a single keyword to say whether or not the angle could change with the box shape the way corner-to-corner gradients do
> 
> I'd need to think about that, but while I am not immediately convinced I like this, it fits the non-ambiguous criteria as well as the non-awkward-wording criteria, so maybe that could work.

That is the most positive review of the idea I have heard yet! :)

Other pluses: It also reduces the number of keywords needed to just one, allows you to create some gradients that you wouldn't otherwise be able to (but with hardly any added complexity), and makes every author word their linear gradients in a more similar fashion (which makes learning the syntax by looking at examples easier).

>> (based on a square, so 45deg would be a down-and-to-the-right corner-to-corner gradient <<using the new meaning of degrees>> ).
> 
> In addition to clockwise, the WG also settled on 0 being north/up, so 45deg would point up-and-to-the-right.

Yeah, I figured. I messed up, and should have said, "up-and-to-the-right". It's hard for me to get used to, and I have to spend a lot more time now thinking about what angle each direction would be. I end up making hand motions and seeing where I end up, instead of just visualizing a protractor or math diagram. If I do get used to it, it's going to completely mess me up when switching back over to using design software.

Received on Friday, 10 June 2011 05:27:37 UTC