Re: [css3-images] closest side radial gradients

On Nov 2, 2011, at 4:44 PM, Brian Manthos wrote:

>>> Example:
>>> div {
>>>    width: 100px;
>>>    height: 200px;
>>>    radial-gradient(10px 10px, brad-modified-closest-side, red, blue);
>>> }
>>> 
>>> Do you exclude both the top and the left from "consideration" since you've moved toward both?
>> Correct.
> 
> So in this scenario you want “brad-modified-closest-side” to mean “third-farthest-side-of-the-four-choices”?
> 
> I’m baffled that you think that’s a good idea.  And I completely disagree with moving in that direction.

Well, so much for trying to keep an open mind. I wouldn't call that a "fair hearing". I gave my reasons why it was a good idea, but instead of responding to any of them, you simply respond to a mockery of the value name. I'm not married to what it is called, but the names you gave are just examples of pejorative to aid yourself in quick dismissal of the idea. 

> Yes, there are degenerate cases for positioning and closest/farthest.  We shouldn't be weakening or removing features because there are edge cases that are non-valuable.  

In what way does this proposal remove features? It allows for all the same end results, with less redundancy, while adding results that are not already possible. And how is having useful "top left, contain', "top left, contain circle', 'top left, nearest-corner', etc. more of an edge case than 'top left, cover'? Making edge- and corner-aligned gradient centers work is the primary reason for having <bg-position> inside of radial-gradient at all. The non-valuable edge case that is still available in another way within radial-gradient is the current case in which moving the center closer to the edge or corner causes the gradient to shrink and disappear. If I am starting the center of my gradient in the top left corner, then the most useful closest sides are NOT the top left.

> If you take that to its logical conclusion we should remove the 'width' property from CSS.

That makes no sense, and now you are just being a troll.

Received on Thursday, 3 November 2011 15:57:23 UTC