W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2012

Re: [css3-images] Fwd: CSS Gradient Notation

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:34:56 +0100
Message-ID: <4F32A430.2040705@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 01/17/2012 11:51 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 17:37:52 -0800, Robert Biggs<rbiggs@ymail.com>  wrote:
>> I was checking out the latest document http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images
>> to check up on the status of CSS gradients. I have to say I was shocked and
>> dismayed to see that you're proposition the requirement for prepositions to
>> be used with the positional keywords. I was scratching my head for quite
>> some time. Is that to make it clearer to English speakers what the keywords
>> do? Requiring English preposition will not make it clearer to people who
>> don't speak English. If you want to make it more grammatical English, you
>> should include the indefinite article, e.g. "to the bottom left". Or maybe
>> an adverb or a gerund: "flowing towards the bottom right". And for radial
>> gradients: "positioned at the closest side". And while you're at it, you
>> could get rid of the hyphens in the radial keywords.
>> I'm being facetious. When the Webkit guys first presented CSS gradients, the
>> Mozilla people complained about the notation being too complicated and came
>> up with a simpler notation. I'm sure you laughed at being required to write
>> from(color), to(color). Funny how you're now suggesting that we have to use
>> prepositions ("to" and "at") with keywords. Don't hobble CSS with English
>> grammatical requirements. No body needs an understanding of English grammar
>> to write HTML or JavaScript or CSS, until now.
>> By the way, in Spanish, the word for "to" is "a" and the word for at is "a".
>> Spanish speakers will not see your prepositions as a clarification of
>> anything.
> The "to" keyword was added to linear gradients because there was
> significant confusion about whether "top" meant "start from the top
> (put the 0% color on the top)" or "point toward the top (put the 100%
> color on the top)".
> ...
> I've not made a change to the draft based on this feedback.  If this
> is acceptable, please reply!  (If it's unacceptable, I expect you'll
> reply as well. ^_^)

So, I see two technical arguments in favor of reverting the change and
none in favor. Based on that I can't really justify keeping the 'to'.
The arguments are:
   1. Reverting is more compatible with existing usage out there, since
      the older variants of linear-gradient() are compatible with the
      request to not use 'to'.
   2. The 'to' preposition is incompatible with the functional notation
      principles you sent out, and the CSSWG adopted, in
      Namely, that keywords are only to be used as a last resort for
      parsing disambiguation where needed.

The argument in favor of rejecting the comment is that the WG discussed
the issue already and made a resolution on it and therefore doesn't want
to reopen the issue. This is an argument, but not a technical one. I'll
also note we do have additional information, i.e. principle #2, that we
didn't have when we made that resolution.

So, weighing the arguments, I'm uncomfortable with rejecting this comment
without a change.

Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 16:38:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:35:04 UTC