- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 09:40:44 -0700
- To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: > All, > I have a couple of question about the current wording of midpoints for CSS > gradients. > > 1. The spec [1] contains 2 contradictory statements: > > Similarly, the color of a color stop can be omitted. The causes the color to > be automatically computed to halfway between the two surrounding stops, so > that the "midpoint" of a transition can be easily adjusted. If multiple > stops in a row lack a color, they space themselves out equally in "color > space", giving more control over the smoothness of the transition. > > and: > > There can only be at most one color interpolation hint between any two given > normal color stops; using more than that makes the function invalid. > > I think the second statement is the correct one since exponential > interpolation between midpoints is not defined. Yup, I noticed that I still had contradictory stuff around when I was trimming it for Images 3. I'll fix. > 2. The spec also doesn't require that a midpoint is not the first or last > stop in a gradient. Yes it does, per the grammar. > 3. I think it's OK to assume that a midpoint that coincides with a regular > stop, does nothing? No, I'm pretty sure it has a (dramatic) effect on interpolation. Why would it do nothing? > 4. It is now legal to write a color stop with no information at all. > For instance: linear-gradient(white 0%,,black 100%) -> note the two commas. > Is this OK? That's not legal. What part of the grammar makes you think that? ~TJ
Received on Monday, 29 September 2014 16:41:32 UTC