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

Re: [css3-images] closest side radial gradients

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 12:40:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAzJGCsUzvWRyRnGBF38Ha2vavoqHoAqE+N1NTYS+N-yw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 2011, at 10:48 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Agreed completely with both points.  I understand where Brad's coming
>> from, but I still think that the current spec definition is the most
>> natural definition for the keyword's name.
>
> I just think we should pick a name that fits the most useful and least surprising value definition, and not the other way around. I further think that the name does not have to explain every nuance of the value, and that 'closest-side' is adequate enough. It does not have to be 'closest-side-that-you-actually-care-about-which-doesn't-give-absurd-results'.

Strawman.  I'm confident we can choose good names.


>> I think we should look
>> into adding more implicit-sizing keywords in the level 4 draft.
>
> I don't. It is complex enough already. That just makes it more so. I want to ditch the not-so-useful-and-redundant meaning in favor of a more useful meaning. Whatever it is called. I don't think the fact that MS and you are in a hurry, or that MS has lots of code and tests that they would need to change should be reason to go with an inferior version that could still be fixed now in the spec.

The entire point of the discussion at TPAC is that we *are* in a
hurry, more or less.  Image Values has spent long enough in WD and we
are actively hurting authors by delaying further .  We're currently
planning to handle one final change in the form of a more literate
syntax, which we should hopefully resolve tomorrow in the call between
all of us, but any further change will invite further delays as we
hash out details.  Those sort of delays are perfectly appropriate for
level 4, but I *really* just want to get level 3 done.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2011 19:41:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:46 GMT