W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2011

RE: [css3-images] 2011/12/01 ED section 4.2 review notes

From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 00:02:11 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9710FCC2E88860489239BE0308AC5D1704512C1A@TK5EX14MBXC264.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
The quoted section doesn't even mention reordering.  It talks about why "to" was removed and, on its face, suggests that the discussion didn't even involve awareness of the loss of reordering capabilities that resulted.

I find it troubling that after such protracted discussions about the grammar of this property, that you're so cavalier in asserting that it was addressed in previous discussion when clearly it was not.


Whether you think that reordering capability is a desirable or not, the loss of functionality was *not* addressed.  That reordering capability was part of why I was somewhat supportive proposed ED grammar.

As it stands, I think we're better off reverting to the 09/08 grammar than moving forward with the lesser version of the grammar that is now in the ED.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 2:21 PM
To: Brian Manthos
Cc: fantasai; www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: [css3-images] 2011/12/01 ED section 4.2 review notes

On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> I'm still curious to here the rationale for killing this reordering support, as it haven't found anywhere where that discussion was documented:
>>> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/csswg/css3-images/Overview.src.html.diff?r1=1.230;r2=1.231;f=h

>>>
>>> The reordering *was* supported before the "rushed edit and publish" at the last TelCon.
>>
>>This was explained both in the telcon (the minutes for which have been
>
> I don't see in the minutes, or in the k... log.  Could you provide a link to the relevant quote?

It's the first part of the "Radial Gradients Readability" topic:

 fantasai: We worked with other WG members to come up with a syntax which
           we posted to the blog, per our action item.
 fantasai: We got some feedback, it was somewhat mixed.
 fantasai: One of the things we noted was that the proposed syntax used
           the "to" keyword to distinguish the size from the position,
           but that seemed confusing/awkward to people.
 fantasai: So we tweaked the proposed syntax a bit to remove that.
           The new version is up on the wiki.
 fantasai: It's simpler than before.
 fantasai: The only thing needed is to distinguish the size from the
            position, but only one of them needs a special marker to
            resolve the parsing/reading ambiguity.
 fantasai: So the proposal is
             radial-gradient( [<shape> || <size> ] [at <position>]?,
<color-stops> )
 fantasai: In the old syntax, you couldn't specify *just* an explicit size,
           because of the parsing ambiguity.  Now everything is optional.
           It's also clearer from the keyword that the values after "at"
           are a position.


In the above minutes, Fantasai explains why we removed the "to" from
in front of the size.
Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2011 00:03:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:47 GMT