- From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:42:35 +1100
- To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- CC: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "L. DavidBaron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 12/10/2011 7:11 AM, Brian Manthos wrote: > I've lost track of which assertions are about the WD syntax and which > are speaking to new proposals. I am so lost. Maybe a tracker for www-style. > I think sample pages with "current syntax is __ to render xyz.png; I > would prefer ___ syntax" might help. > > I hope Tab is following this. Perhaps he can repackage the current > path of debate in a way that I'm able to consume. So you need something buried in Tab's head to convert it to Tab's way of expression so you can input into your head to make sense of what Brad is talking about. This could be a very long thread. > On the larger discussion... > > The impression I have from this latest branch is that now your > concern is that the syntax isn't "rich enough" (allowing > contain/cover to behave differently or have more options for > off-center gradients) whereas the original proposal was to trim back > the syntax as "too rich". I will add that the richness of the radial-gradient syntax would help with linear-gradients so with don't have different gradient line (segmenst) lengths when transitioning from side to corner. The only way to control this now is using background-size. I having trouble just to reply to any part of this thread before another 5 or so messages are added deeper. -- Alan Gresley http://css-3d.org/ http://css-class.com/
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2011 01:43:05 UTC