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

Re: [css3-images] linear-gradient keywords and angles are opposite

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:33:36 -0400
Message-ID: <4DF8C2C0.1050002@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 06/10/2011 12:17 PM, Brian Manthos wrote:
> Simon Fraser:
>> This thread has gone on long enough.
>> We're at the point where we obviously have a bunch of competing
>> suggestions, and are not going to reach consensus. It's at this point
>> that you have to stop and ask yourself (especially if you are in a
>> minority) "can I live with a spec which says X".
>> I suggest that Tab revert his edit to the spec that changed the meaning
>> of the keywords for linear-gradient (since it wasn't resolved by the
>> WG), and we all step back and consider whether the spec is workable in
>> that form.
> There are several edits that haven't been resolved by the WG that are in the current ED.

Not all edits need to be resolved by the WG. Fixing the transition rules
to take the shortest path, for example: that's an obvious error, and Tab
can fix it without WG discussion unless someone objects for some reason.

> I suggest the edit stays and then "we all step back".
> With reversion, the issue that I raised remains unaddressed.  With the edit, the issue is resolved.

No, your objection is resolved. The issue is not resolved because there
are other people, such as me and Simon, who disagree with that edit.

> Given there are unhappy parties either way, if it's a split committee
> is it not better to have the inconsistency resolved rather than "lived with"?

Firstly, I think it would make more sense to ask the authoring community
rather than the implementing community whether having a "left" gradient
start at the left side of the box is confusing. They, not you, are the
ones using the syntax, and they, unlike you, aren't thinking about the
internal model of the implementation but about consistency with how they
would themselves describe their intentended result.

Secondly, I don't agree that the old spec is in any way inconsistent on
how it defines the named keywords.

Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2011 14:34:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:46 UTC