W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2015

Re: [css-shapes][css-images] Ellipse syntax(es) with a single radius

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 10:47:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBaCQhQF_=W-AegL2p-JWf-_S7BJAOC7GFdwY-wieWSMQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org Style" <www-style@w3.org>, "rob.buis@samsung.com" <rob.buis@samsung.com>, "Eric A. Meyer" <eric@meyerweb.com>
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 2:46 AM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
> On 12/6/15, 2:10 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Check radial-gradient() again - it requires 0 or 2 *length/percentage*
>>values, or 1 keyword.  You have ellipse() accepting 0 or 2 keywords
>>(along with 0 or 2 len/%).  You're not currently matching
>>radial-gradient() at all. ^_^
>
> I did note that discrepancy in the previous thread on this topic (that I linked with [2], and that you were part of). The main difference is that the shape functions have parameters that are always radius values, while the gradient syntax has a <size> argument that can either be radius value(s) or a more general sizing constraint (and the gradient syntax has additional keywords built to use in that general sizing constraint).
>
> So I’m trying to match the case where the gradient syntax specifies radius values. The fact remains that if I change the ellipse() function to allow only one radius value, it probably makes sense to change the gradient syntax to allow that as well. But all this accomplishes is the ability to create circles with one less parameter in the ellipse() function.

I'm confused. Are you trying to match radial-gradient() or not?  In
the OP you said "I defined the ellipse function to match what we have
in radial-gradient()".  If this is what you wanted, then *match
radial-gradient()*.  The "radius" argument is either a single keyword
(which dictates the size of both radiuses), or two length/percentages.
I'm not sure I understand what you're arguing about here.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 9 December 2015 18:48:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:59 UTC