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: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:17:40 +0000
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E10D5C6C1@TK5EX14MBXC111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 3:59 PM
To: Sylvain Galineau
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: [css3-background] border-radius color transitions using gradients recommended but undefined

> (If you'd answered my question ~24 hours ago, then maybe there would have been fewer repetitive messages.)
I answered your questions. You asked me what it is I wanted in the spec while ignoring repeated concerns regarding
the feature's testability, which was not the issue as I was asking why it should be in the spec in such vague form, and 
why a stable unprefixed property was the proper place for it. 

In any case, arguing about arguing is both tiresome and clearly pointless here.

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

#5 is unacceptable and never was an option. #1 never was either. At this stage of CR,
given the relative lack of importance of the use-case compared to everything else in the 
spec and the lack of support in competing implementations that have supported border-radius 
for a while, I prefer #2. If this were a property, it'd simply be at risk. Should we support it - a big if at this 
stage - it would be accessed through -ms-border-radius.
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 00:18:31 GMT

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