On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: > > Isn't it needed so you can place the 'middle' of the conic gradient? > > Dirk's question and Simon's answer aren't about whether the argument > is needed at all, but rather about the 'at' keyword used to introduce > the argument. > I see. Since a colorstop requires a color, I agree that the 'at' is not really needed. > > > From the spec, it's unclear how you can rotate the gradient. Why is the > > start angle always as 0 degrees? > > Because it's a reasonable choice. To "rotate" it, just change the > color-stop positions, exactly like you would to get a linear-gradient > to move. Wouldn't that be hard to author? For instance, to emulate the attached gradient the user would have to calculate the color that's at 0 and 360 degrees himself.
(image/jpeg attachment: gradient.jpg)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:28 UTC