Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2009-08-12

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:40 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>wrote:

>  fantasai: I think the syntax is very verbose. Is it verbose because
>            we need room for extensions, or is it verbose because no
>            one's bothered to simplify it yet


How should we simplify the syntax? I think we improved the syntax a bit in
our implementation but I'm not sure how to make it much better.

The simplest possible case is a horizontal or vertical linear gradient. In
our syntax:
background: linear-gradient(0 0, 100% 0, from(red), to(green));

The only way I can see to really simplify without losing anything would be
to add two additional color arguments before the color stops, which are the
"from" and "to" colors. Then we eliminate "from()" and "to()" from the
syntax. That would make the above example into
background: linear-gradient(0 0, 100% 0, red, green);

Worth it?

Bert: Next people are going to reimplement SVG in CSS, I don't want to
>        get there
>

Neither do I, and I've said so before, and I've actually done quite a lot of
work to forestall the reimplementation of SVG in CSS, by extending our SVG
and CSS implementation so that SVG features like 'filter', 'mask' and
'clip-path' can be used with HTML.

However, gradients are so common that I think we should do this. A large
number of Web images are just gradients, there is a very clear need to make
gradients as simple as possible.

Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
53:5-6]