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: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:12:10 +0000
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E10D5110E@TK5EX14MBXC111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Elika,

Our position, currently, remains d). Was that really unclear ?

Now, I would at least appreciate you giving us the courtesy of answering our questions. One of those, from the very beginning, was and remains: how is this behavior going to be tested in the test suite ? What does the typical testcase look like ?

Does the testcase simplay say: "these corners should be rounded and there should be a color gradient in them ?" Is that it ? Is that enough for interop purposes ? Why ?

When we - as in the WG; not just you, me, Brian or Arron whose opinion, by the way, I also represent - have a clear answer to what kind of testing is appropriate, we should have a much better idea of what is missing from the spec, as well as how this feature should be accessed by authors.

Thus far, we have concluded that the superficial 'eye-ball' testing mentioned above is all we can realistically achieve across browsers given the current level of specification. As this level of testing is highly likely to result in interop issues for the authors who care about this effect, and as it is deemed to be experimental, we prefer to keep it opt-in.  

I still await a clear explanation as to why that outcome is unacceptable. Assertions that it is unacceptable are insufficient.


________________________________________
From: fantasai [fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 2:49 AM
To: Sylvain Galineau
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: [css3-background] border-radius color transitions using gradients  recommended but undefined

On 02/23/2010 06:07 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
>...

Hi Sylvain,

I asked you a question. Perhaps I was not clear that I did not intend
it to be a rhetorical question. Perhaps the question itself was unclearly
worded, because it referred to a proposal first presented in a different
email. Let me combine the relevant texts and be clear:

The following question is not rhetorical, and I am requesting an
answer from you, Sylvain Galineau:

Would appending to the paragraph:

    # It is not defined what these transitions look like, but a gradient
    # is recommended for color transitions that don't involve dotted or
    # dashed borders.

the following text:

    | The start and end color stops should be given by the line segments
    | connecting the tips of the inner radii with the corresponding tips
    | of the outer radii, and the halfway point between the start and end
    | colors should align with the transition center defined above. Conical
    | gradients are recommended for gradient color transitions.

sufficiently address your concern about the spec's underspecificity, or
is there some other detail that you require?

To be extra-clear, I will note that this question is multiple choice, and
the choices (afaict) are:

   a) Yes, it sufficiently addresses my concern about the spec's
      underspecificity with regards to border-radius gradient color transitions.
   b) No, it does not sufficiently address my concern about the spec's
      underspecificity with regards to border-radius gradient color transitions,
      because I require additional detail(s) in the spec.
   c) No, it does not sufficiently address my concern about the spec's
      underspecificity with regards to border-radius gradient color transitions
      because although the detail is sufficient, the strictness of the UA
      requirements is not.
   d) No, it does not sufficiently address my concern about the spec's
      underspecificity with regards to border-radius gradient color transitions
      because I require additional detail(s) in the spec and because the
      strictness of the UA requirements is insufficient.

~fantasai


Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 15:12:50 GMT

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