Le 7 juin 2013 à 01:28, Angela French <afre...@sbctc.edu> a écrit :
> Seems like (top bottom, red, yellow) would make more sense, top being the > start and bottom being the finish. Ehhh… That is what many people on the CCS WG mailing list were saying at the time the spec was changed to include the 'to'. The argument was then that *some* people might be confused or something (without the 'to'). And that it allows for a more concise, shorter syntax (the CSS WG sometimes is obsessed with a fear that stylesheet authors might have to type too much; personally, I prefer to type 10 more characters if it makes the whole thing more easy to read, and equally important, more easy to debug). Needless to say, rationality lost and the gradient syntax became even more complex and harder to read. (that is not to say the addition of the 'to' qualifier is completely useless - the argument has been made recently that it allows future expandability of the gradient syntax). Fwiw, if you want a (basic) top-to-bottom gradient, you can safely omit the direction keywords, top-to-bottom being the default. So linear-gradient(to bottom, red, yellow) is the same as linear-gradient(red, yellow). Besides, gradients are so last year… :-) Philippe -- Philippe Wittenbergh http://l-c-n.com ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
