Re: [css3-images] interpolation of color stop positions (was Re: Change to currentColor means it's no longer animatable?)

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 12:36 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:

> 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.
>

I argued much the same position in the linked thread, Brian Manthos
strongly disagreed. There was no consensus so we ended with the status quo,
which it seems is to perform stop resolution before interpolation.

I'm very happy for us to revisit this though.

Cheers,
   -Shane



>
> -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/   𝄂
>