On 12/10/2011 3:58 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Brad Kemper<brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Oct 7, 2011, at 4:07 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr."<jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Most of the patterns in Lea's gallery don't use any sizing or >>> positioning at all, only color-stops, and so are equally doable with >>> either the current syntax or Brad's suggested change. They would all >>> need their color-stop positions divided by sqrt(2), though, as Brad's >>> suggested default sizing behavior is "contain". >> >> IIRC, converting them is a matter of multiplying by 1.72 (or thereabouts). > > 1.41, which is approximately sqrt(2). 2 squared = 1.414213562373095 / 0.02 = 70.71067811865475 The below test shows what I believe (along with Brad) should be the default behavior for radial-gradient which would be contain or closest-side. <!DOCTYPE html> <style type="text/css"> html, body {height: 100%; margin: 0;} body { background: -webkit-radial-gradient(blue 70.71067811865475%, white 70.71067811865475%); background: -moz-radial-gradient(blue 70.71067811865475%, white 70.71067811865475%); background: -ms-radial-gradient(blue 70.71067811865475%, white 70.71067811865475%); } </style> This is also the default behavior for an SVG. http://css-class.com/test/svg/ellipse/intrinsic.svg -- Alan Gresley http://css-3d.org/ http://css-class.com/Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2011 00:35:30 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:05 UTC
