- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 15:33:21 -0800
- To: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Lea Verou <lea@w3.org> wrote: > Since we can now have two positions per color stop [1], which is equivalent > to two color stops with the older syntax, gradients should permit one color > stop only. Grammar-wise, it's only a matter of converting a few +s to *s. > > In case the only color stop doesn't include two positions, it could be > defined as equivalent to having 0% 100%. Yes, this is essentially identical > to using image(color), but: > 1. There is no serious reason to disallow degenerate applications of any CSS > feature and few other CSS features do. > 2. It ensures consistency and matches author expectations. > 3. Good educational value: People who use editors that live update will be > able to see what they're doing before they even type the second color. > Instant feedback is an age-old UI principle and syntax is the UI of the > language. > 4. It's trivial to implement. > > [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/css4-images/#color-stop-syntax While I don't have anything particularly *against* such a thing (as you point out, it's trivial to handle), is there any good reason to do it? A gradient with a single color isn't a gradient at all. Why do you think it matches author expectations to allow a single color? ("Because they told me so" is fine, though I'd like more detail about what confused them.) Allowing live editors to provide feedback as soon as possible is a decent reason (part of why CSS allows so much to be omitted in the first place), but before you add the second color, you don't even know what the gradient *looks* like. I imagine that if there was only a single color-stop, it would just compute itself to "color 0% 100%"? ~TJ
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 23:34:08 UTC