- From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 22:44:17 +0000
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
From: L. David Baron [mailto:dbaron@dbaron.org] >> Generically, the proposed syntax is: >> radial-gradient( <shape-info> >> from <position> >> as <color-stop> [, <color-stop>]+ ) > > The thing I don't like is that, in general, I don't like something > that looks like this: > > function(foo bar as a, b, c) > > because I think when you have commas inside of functions, it's > natural to split it like this (because many languages separate > things inside functional syntax with commas): > foo bar as a > b > c > > rather than splitting it as: > foo bar > a, b, c > > I thus prefer replacing the "as" with a ",". Indeed. This is one of the reasons I strongly prefer proposal C to proposal B. Another reason is that I see the general syntax as: <gradient-type>-gradient([<optional-parameters> ,] <color-stop>[, <color-stop>]+) where <gradient-type> is either "linear" or "radial" for CSS3, and <optional-parameters> resolves to one of <linear-optional-parameters> <radial-optional-parameters> I also believe this easily scales to all gradient types that we might propose for CSS going forward. A: radial-gradient(1em 2em, 3em 5em, red, orange, yellow) B: radial-gradient(3em 5em at 1em 2em as red, orange, yellow) C: radial-gradient(3em 5em at 1em 2em, red, orange, yellow) D: radial-gradient(shape 3em 5em at 1em 2em as red, orange, yellow)
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2011 21:09:05 UTC