RE: [css3-images] Making gradients readable

Can I get out of a meeting on Tuesday if I say "/approve"? ;)

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Kemper [mailto:brad.kemper@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 7:25 PM
To: Tab Atkins Jr.
Cc: Brian Manthos; L. David Baron; fantasai; www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: [css3-images] Making gradients readable

On Nov 4, 2011, at 6:28 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> Fantasai and I came to a consensus on the syntax we'd like to see:
> 
> radial-gradient(<shape> to <extent> at <position>, <colors>)
> 
> In Images 4, when we add the ability to change the focus point, it'll look like:
> 
> radial-gradient(<shape> to <extent> at <position> [from <position> |
> from offset <length>{1,2}], <colors>)
> 
> (Both of these grammars are approximate, and omit the details that
> make each piece optional and order-variable.)
> 
> We chose this because 'from' really sounds like it should be
> specifying where the 0% color emerges from.  Once that decision has
> been made, 'at' seems to be the best of the remaining options for
> specifying the center of the shape.
> 
> Because the default size is cover, this means:
> 
> * radial-gradient(from 25% 25%, <colors>) makes the 0% color at 25%
> 25%, and the 100% color is at a box-centered box-covering ellipse.
> * radial-gradient(at 25% 25%, <colors>) makes the 0% color at 25% 25%,
> and the 100% color at a 25% 25%-centered box-covering ellipse.
> 
> Examples of the above can be seen on the wiki at
> <http://wiki.csswg.org/ideas/radial-gradient-readability>.
> 
> How does this sound?

Logical, assuming it is important to include focal point shifting in a CSS4 version. That remains to be seen, but this keyword wording is reasonable for today's version.

Received on Saturday, 5 November 2011 02:28:20 UTC