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

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

From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 02:08:12 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9710FCC2E88860489239BE0308AC5D170EB58D20@TK5EX14MBXC266.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In short, I agree with Tab here.  STOP TRYING TO CHANGE IT (BACK) AGAIN.

In long, I don't have the bandwidth today or tomorrow to rehash the argument a 7th time.  If you really want to revisit it again, I'll try to find some time on Friday instead of doing real work.

Sigh.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 8:57 AM
> To: fantasai
> Cc: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [css3-images] Fwd: CSS Gradient Notation
> 
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 8:34 AM, fantasai
> <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> > 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
> >       http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jan/0933.html

> >     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.
> 
> I'm not changing a thing in this regard without a WG resolution
> commanding it.  We've had resolutions for the current syntax, I'm
> happy with the current syntax, and the entire syntax *thing* has been
> incredibly painful, which another change will not help with.
> 
> If you can convince the WG to agree with you, I will happily make the
> change.  You've got two weeks until CR.
> 
> ~TJ
> 

Received on Thursday, 9 February 2012 02:08:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:50 GMT