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

RE: [css3-images] simplifying radial gradients

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 19:49:06 +0000
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F0178293895B3@TK5EX14MBXC297.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

[L. David Baron:]
> 
> 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.
> 
+1. A few people on this list truly own this debate by virtue of their deep
understanding of the feature. They can read a gradient syntax proposal and 
all the possible visuals in their head. (I'm thinking of Tab, Brian or Brad). 
From their point of view, all of this is as obvious as all the reasons
their position is the right one. Faced with such positions and long threads, 
the rest of us are hoping they can find a few hours to commit to studying the
issue sometime in the next two weeks. Maybe.

My understanding is that we have 4 implementations able to produce a superset 
of Brad's proposal; as such I assume it would be relatively easy to build a 
sample page showing what both proposals allow authors to achieve, as well as 
those things that may be 'cut' by one vs. the other. Said page could also 
show the syntax required in each proposal. 

Should we want to poll authors, a comparative page of this nature is a must-have
imo. And since we are strongly arguing usability vs functionality, I would love
to hear from authors. (Starting with Lea and Estelle who know a thing or two about 
gradients).

Received on Friday, 7 October 2011 19:49:34 GMT

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