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

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

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 10:37:00 -0800
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <92E5C476-62C4-46E1-A458-99ADF7628AA1@gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>

On Dec 7, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Aside from disagreeing that about allowing less-readable order, I still have a problem with having to write out 'ellipse' much more often. I used to be able to write this:
>> 
>> radial-gradient(closest-corner, yellow, blue)
>> 
>> But now I have to be longer and more explicit, like this:
>> 
>> radial-gradient(ellipse to closest-corner, yellow, blue)
>> 
>> That is a big downgrade, IMO. It could be solved with this:
>> 
>> radial-gradient(
>> [
>>   [ circle?  <length>? ] | [ ellipse?  <length>{2}? ] |
>>   [ [ circle | ellipse ] to]? <closest/farthest-corner-side>
>> ]?
>> [ at <position ]?
>> , <color-stops>)
>> 
>> I'd rather this be settled now, before last call, than to be objecting during last call, or waiting until there are more implementations using yet another syntax that could change again.
> 
> Huh?  I don't understand.  That's not true at all.  There's no "to" in
> the grammar, and you can always omit 'ellipse'.
> "radial-gradient(closest-corner, yellow, blue)" is definitely valid
> and does what you expect (the same thing as it did in the old WD
> grammar).

Well then, I really don't know where the latest grammar came from. I never discussed it. The last one I discussed amongst us four, before you presented it to the WG 4 days after Thanksgiving was from fantasai's e-mail two days after Thanksgiving, which had this:

>> If we have 'at' disambiguating the <position>, we don't need a keyword
>> specifically to disambiguate the size. So here's a suggestion to address
>> that feedback:
>>  - specify circle/ellipse keyword || explicit size OR
>>  - specify circle/ellipse keyword with "to <keyword>"
>> 
>> radial-gradient(
>> [  [ circle || <length> ] | [ ellipse || <length>{2} ] |
>>   [ circle | ellipse ] to <closest/farthest-corner-side> ]?
>> [ at <position ]?
>> , <color-stops>)
>> 
>> You get:
>> 
>>  radial-gradient(5em circle at 25% 25%, yellow, blue)
>>  radial-gradient(ellipse 50% 2em at center, yellow, blue)
>>  radial-gradient(circle to closest-corner, yellow, blue)

That was the one I thought had some promise, but still needed a little work. So apparently, shortly after that, you came up with a grammar that was different, and presented it to the WG as something the four of us had agreed to that best addressed the comments of the survey. No wonder I am confused. The WG voted on something I wasn't even aware of, and which had not been adaquately discussed beforehand. 

> (This wasn't true in the November ED grammar, either - you could write
> "radial-gradient(to closest-corner, yellow, blue)".)

What day in November was that?
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 18:37:31 GMT

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