- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:03:43 -0800
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 02/24/2010 03:59 PM, fantasai wrote: > On 02/24/2010 03:15 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote: >>> From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net] >> >> >>> Given that on the 3 February 2010 teleconference you said >>> Sylvain: I'm ok with 2 or 3 >> >> Yes, that is what I said. And after further conversations with >> my peers we agreed that this was not right. Given the number of >> repetitive messages on this topic between now and then - most of >> them over the past ~24 hours, between you and I - I didn't expect >> the need for clarification this far along. My bad. > > (If you'd answered my question ~24 hours ago, then maybe there > would have been fewer repetitive messages.) > > Since you've changed your position, let's go back to the question > before the WG 3 weeks ago. > > fantasai: we have 5 options > 1. Require the sharp transition > 2. Drop recommendation for gradient, leave transition undefined > 3. Recommend gradient, define color stops > 4. Give precise mathematical definition for a gradient that will give > pixel-perfect copies across implementations > 5. Drop border-radius > > Pick one. Actually, better yet, pick your favorite and list the ones you can't live with. ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 00:04:18 UTC