W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2013

Re: [css-images] conic-gradient and 'at'

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
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)

Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2013 22:03:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:28 UTC