W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2010

RE: [css3-background] border-radius color transitions using gradients recommended but undefined

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:02:34 +0000
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E10D347FC@TK5EX14MBXC111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>


> From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 12:10 PM
> To: Sylvain Galineau
> Cc: Daniel Glazman; www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [css3-background] border-radius color transitions using
> gradients recommended but undefined


> I would appreciate less threat and more constructive criticism, Sylvain.

Threats ? Expecting that a Candidate Recommendation can be
interoperably implemented and tested in full is threatening ? Expecting 
that authors not get opted in visibly different renderings depending on 
what browser they use is threatening ? 

Well, so be it. I'm sorry if my standards are so threatening but I'm not 
going to lower them for the sake of recommending a suggestion.
 
Either we can specify the behavior that authors want - since they will 
have limited control on the result, this should matter a great deal 
imo -  in an interoperable, testable way. Or, as you pointed out on multiple 
occasions, we want to experiment.

I remain completely comfortable with the latter as long as it does not happen at 
authors'expense by forcing it on them through a standard property. If we need
implementation experience to get it right, so be it. 

> There is considerably more detail that I could specify for gradients if
> I had a
> week to spend in a university library researching the correct
> mathematical models
> and working out the exact geometry for normal and degenerate cases. I
> cannot tell
> from what you write whether that is something you're demanding or not,
> and it's
> very frustrating to me that you are so angry with the current spec yet
> so unclear
> about what it is you want from it.

Given the record to date, I don't believe I am the angry one. Baffled and
completely mystified, for sure. And please, let us not extrapolate from one 
underspecified recommendation to 'the current spec'. We are implementing 
the current spec. As you're in a position to know how seriously we're taking 
it, I very much doubt hyperbole is strictly necessary. 

If we can't specify this in Level 3, we can leave it out for the next level. This
does not preclude experimentation by browser vendors behind their respective prefix. 
I don't understand why that outcome is unacceptable.





Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 22:03:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:24 GMT