W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2011

Re: [css3-images] Summary of recent gradient issues

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:58:14 -0700
Message-Id: <4216BEA5-F3C7-43C1-B232-39847EF22862@gmail.com>
Cc: divya manian <divya.manian@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
On Jun 17, 2011, at 10:34 AM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote:

>> Another example is 'vertical-align:top' versus 'vertical-align:5px'.
>> With the unit measurements, it is understood to be "from the baseline".
>> With the keywords, it is essentially "from the edge described by the
>> keyword" (as in linear-gradient working draft). I've never heard of
>> this causing even the slightest confusion, and I rather have
>> consistency with these than to try to build in some sort of new link
>> between the starting alignment keyword and the unit measurements.
>> Far more confusing is trying to understand the difference between
>> 'vertical-align:top' vs. 'vertical-align:text-top'. If you can learn
>> that, then you can also learn that 'left' is a starting position
>> for linear-gradient and not an end position.
> My interpretation: "Weird, confusing stuff happens in other parts of CSS, so that should be precedent for doing more of it."

Seriously? You find it weird and confusing that "top" and "bottom" start at a different edges than "5px" for vertical-align? I find that hard to believe, and that is my argument as presented above: that it IS simple and not confusing at all, and that linear-gradient is conceptually similar wrt keywords vs unit measures. 

Or are you only reacting to the part where I said other parts of that spec require more effort to understand than such a simple thing?
Received on Friday, 17 June 2011 19:58:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:50:02 UTC