- From: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 11:46:14 +0200
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Nov 6, 2012, at 01:33, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Lea Verou <lea@w3.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
I pointed out all the reasons I could think of in the previous email. Consistency mainly.
>
> 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.)
Because when something works for N = 1, 2, 3, … you expect it to work for N = 1 as well and can get frustrated when it doesn’t.
>
> 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.
You can see what your first color looks like, that's some feedback. I always hated it when I did this and I had to type two stops to see what I'm doing.
>
> I imagine that if there was only a single color-stop, it would just
> compute itself to "color 0% 100%"?
Yes, I already said that in my first email:
> In case the only color stop doesn't include two positions, it could be defined as equivalent to having 0% 100%.
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 09:46:31 UTC