- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 13:36:12 -0700
- To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAGN7qDBoBZ_XqPbXhQWG=zz5YQ0fNsiKdEphTJqmRQew35HtBg@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote: > Le 08/04/2013 19:02, Dirk Schulze a écrit : > > On Apr 8, 2013, at 9:34 AM, Tab Atkins Jr.<jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Dirk Schulze<dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I am not sure if we want to keep conic-gradient at all, but I >>>> would suggest to remove the string "at" [1]. I think this just >>>> leads to more confusion for web authors. There is no need to >>>> require another string which does not have any value for the web >>>> author or the UA. >>>> >>> >>> It's there for consistency with radial-gradient(), as it's the same >>> argument. >>> >> I don't buy this argument actually. >> > > In radial-gradient() the 'at' is needed to disambiguate <size> vs. > <position>. > > I *think* that it’s not actually needed for conic-gradient(), but I agree > with Tab that the consistency is nice. Isn't it needed so you can place the 'middle' of the conic gradient? >From the spec, it's unclear how you can rotate the gradient. Why is the start angle always as 0 degrees?
Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2013 20:36:38 UTC