Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 15:02:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDCMUhij6v1XMCOvji+PA3Xh-apvHJcFuyhiBsUp+ii1SQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
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)