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

Re: [css3-images] simplifying radial gradients

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 09:08:16 -0700
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20111007160816.GA13734@pickering.dbaron.org>
On Thursday 2011-10-06 08:50 -0700, Brad Kemper wrote:
> I would love to resolve within two weeks. Unfortunately, when the
> main person I need to resolve it with has said "I've decided to
> reject [Brad's] proposal for simplifying radial gradients", and
> doesn't suggest any alternatives to the problem (or acknowledge
> the problem), it makes it tough to try to work out a resolution
> that is satisfactory to all (or even good enough to most). I don't
> feel it was nearly as widely reviewed as linear-gradient was, and
> so far the only ones to consider my complaints (and say anything
> on the list) were Tab (the author of this part of the spec) and
> Brian (an implementor who probably feels that the large effort he
> contributed to implement radial-gradient in IE10 should not be
> wasted). It might help if more WG members who are generally
> familiar with the radial gradients spec can read and consider my
> in-list comments, and comment back on them (agree that they are
> valid points, or tell me that I am off my rocker).

I think it would help other WG members (at the very least, this one)
to follow and respond constructively to the discussion if you
provided better links to things that you are referring to.  For
example, in this message, you've referred a number of times to your
proposal for simplifying radial gradients, yet you have not provided
a link to it.  (Nor, in his reply, did Tab provide a link to his
response.)

A lot of threads on this list (which has become very high-volume)
are extremely long and involve a lot of corrections of
misunderstandings, etc. (which not everyone wants to read), and then
statements of new proposals hidden deep within the thread.  You have
to remember (1) that the more messages there are, the fewer people
will read them and (2) that if your messages are incomprehensible to
those who haven't read *all* of the prior discussion, you're going
to end up in a two person debate.

Or, to put it another way:  If your goal is to help others
understand (and thus maybe agree with) your arguments, it helps to
(1) state those arguments clearly in a single place and (2) link to
that place when you refer to it.

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
Received on Friday, 7 October 2011 16:37:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:45 GMT