- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:36:35 -0400
- To: Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tuesday 2012-05-01 10:25 +1000, Shane Stephens wrote: > When we discussed this issue last August ( > http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/OOYmTrbeuqHBxqIvwMab) the consensus > seemed to be that both bumping of overlapping stops and placement of > auto-positioned stops occurs before interpolation. You can't bump > overlapping stops until layout time. Why? I really don't think interpolation should depend on layout, and I don't see what the use case for breaking that principle here is. -David > > so for the following example at a width of 100px: > > linear-gradient(red 100px, green 50%); > to > linear-gradient(red 20px, green 50%); > > consensus was that we first resolve to > linear-gradient(red 100px, green 100px); > to > linear-gradient(red 20px, green 50px); > (i.e. at 50% interpolation we'd have linear-gradient(red 60px, green 75px)) > > rather than first interpolate, then resolve. > (i.e. at 50% interpolation we'd have linear-gradient(red 60px, green 50%), > which would resolve to linear-gradient(red 60px, green 60px)) > On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:03 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > > I don't think so. Gradient stop positions that are mixes of lengths > > and percents can be represented using calc(), and thus done entirely > > at the computed value stage. -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2012 02:37:03 UTC