- From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 04:14:28 +1100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
On 21/01/2012 12:19 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 5:10 PM, fantasai<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: >> On 01/18/2012 07:02 PM, Brian Manthos wrote: >>> >>> Linear gradient with keywords: This was discussed exhaustively and >>> ended up in a WG resolution. That said... >> >> I thought it was resolved, but I tried to look up the resolution for >> Lea yesterday, and couldn't find it. We discussed it at the Seattle >> F2F, but the only conclusion there was to defer keywords to Level 4. >> http://www.w3.org/mid/4E38E1B9.20003@inkedblade.net >> >> If you can find it, send me a pointer. Otherwise the issue is, apparently, >> still unresolved. > > 10Aug2011 telcon: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Aug/0271.html > > ~TJ Please note the part I initially quote [2]. This seems rather a short discussion. Later in this thread [3] I mentioned the following. Another reason that I see _direction to_ notation as wrong is that the syntax can not be extended in future and have it make sense. If it was possible to have the beginning of the gradient from 'top' and the end of the gradient to 'bottom right', -----T----- | \ | | \ | | \ | | \| ---------BR then having the 'to bottom' instead of 'top' complicate things. You could write this, _top to bottom right_ where the reverse does not make sense. _to bottom from top left_ and indicates a different vector. TL--------- |\ | | \ | | \ | | \ | -----B----- 2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Aug/0271.html 3. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Aug/0412.html -- Alan Gresley http://css-3d.org/ http://css-class.com/
Received on Saturday, 21 January 2012 17:15:03 UTC