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

RE: [css3-background] color transition line

From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:27:04 +0000
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9710FCC2E88860489239BE0308AC5D170EB01B6E@TK5EX14MBXC266.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
fantasai:
> The bit of text you're complaining about isn't being changed.

1. In your original mail, you didn't include all of the old text you are proposing to replace.  In your original mail, the "not defined" portion wasn't include for the "Current text" portion.  As such, since I didn't have the spec immediately in front of me the incompleteness of the mail was problematic.  Mea culpa for getting distracted by trusting your original mail to be complete.  In the future, I'll try remember to follow the link to verify that you didn't omit anything directly or indirectly related to the concerns at hand.


2. "Complaining" and "expressing concern" are two different things.  It's a nuance I grant, but sometimes an important one.  If you don't want feedback, don't ask for it.  If you do want feedback, don't choose negatively biased words in your follow-up responses; doing so is counterproductive.


3. Actually, it is being changed.  Elaborating...

Current text:
# It is not defined what these transitions look like.

Proposed text:
# However it is not defined what these transitions look like
# or how "proportional" maps to a point on the curve.


You're proposing to expand what is officially undefined.  This is part of what I'm concerned with.

I'm presuming you have a goal of being more accommodating of what you consider multiple valid renderings for current browsers to allow the spec to progress and/or capture current state of affairs.  I don't think it's unreasonable to see what you're seeing (i.e. examples) so that we can help you evaluate if the proposed changes are broad enough (enhanced conformance of existing implementations) while remaining acceptably confining (excluding absurd implementation results).
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 06:27:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:48 GMT