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.
