- From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 18:56:12 +0000
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Brad: > if you have a position change so that the gradient is not centered, the gradient gets > clipped when you have farthest-side or *-corner, but for closest side the gradient just > gets smaller as you get closer to a side, and disappears altogether (except for the last > stop) if you align the center with an edge. That's an incomplete characterization. It does become a solid color in some cases (when all stops are in percentage form) but not all (for example, when some stops are in non-percentage form and greater than zero). Tab started the "[css3-images] Radial gradients with a degenerate shape" thread to discuss this. After some discussion we concluded on the language in this edit: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/csswg/css3-images/Overview.html.diff?r1=1.147;r2=1.148;f=h Sample page from that thread: http://www.xanthir.com/etc/degenerate-gradients.html The \\build build of IE10 to matched an earlier spec, but had some bugs for cases like Tab's page. I believe internal IE10 builds match the 09/08 WD's description, but I haven't blanketed it with test cases to be 100% certain yet. Brad: > What I think we should consider is that closest-side should not make the gradient smaller. > The way this would work is that 'closest-side' would not consider the side(s) that you've > offset the gradient towards when determining which is closer, and the gradient would > get clipped instead. I wish the image would load for me. :( Nonetheless, as you've described it, the proposed behavior wouldn't be "closest-side" anymore. It would be "closest-side-except-this-one-here" which I find confusing at best.
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2011 21:15:15 UTC