- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:43:39 -0700
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com> wrote: > On 21/3/11 20:11, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> The only amendment I'd make to the grammar would be that I'd need a >> new<conical-color-stop> or something that took an<angle> rather than >> a<length> or<percentage> (neither of which make sense here, I >> think). > > Very good point about <length>, I totally forgot about it. Yes, an <angle> > makes much more sense. However, I'm failing to see why a <percentage> > doesn't. The way I was thinking about it, percentages would be directly > converted to <angle>s, where 100% would be 360deg, 50% would be 180deg and > so on. Yes, it seems redundant, but it could be convenient as a shortcut and > many authors would expect them to work in conical gradients too I think. Ah, yeah, <percentage> would work. Never mind me, then. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 21 March 2011 18:44:31 UTC