RE: [css3-background] color transition line

> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011Jul/0005.html
> 
> Currently the only correct option is the third one (t17-ray).
> The goal is
>    - to have both the first (IE's interpretation) and the fourth
>      (preferred by all the actual authors I've asked) be conforming,
>      as well as allowing gradient transitions to be conforming
>    - to meanwhile require that if a border is missing on one
>      side, the entire curve is rendered with the color and style of
>      the other side
>    - and also require that if the border widths are changed, the
>      rendering result is reasonably continuous*
> 
> * it might not be entirely continuous because as more or less dots
>    or dashes fit, there will be discontinuities in the rendering as
>    they are added/removed

(A)
Current text:
   # The center of color and style transitions between adjoining borders is
   # at the point on the curve that is at an angle that is proportional to
   # the ratio of the border widths. For example, if the top and right border
   # widths are equal, that point is at a 45° angle from the horizontal, and
Proposed text:
   | If one of these borders is zero-width, then the other border takes up
   | the entire transitional area. Otherwise, the center of color and style
   | transitions between adjoining borders must be proportional to the ratio
   | of the border widths such that a function of its location is continuous
   | with respect to this ratio. However it is not defined what these

My interpretation of both these versions is that markup of the form...
	border-width: 20px;
	border-color: red green blue black;
	border-radius: <border-radius-value>;
...should have a color transition lines at 45° angles (rotated accordingly for corners other than the top right) for any value of <border-radius-value>.

Do you interpret that differently?


(B)
Current text:
   # The line demarcating this transition is drawn
   # between the point at that angle on the outer arc and the point at that
   # angle on the inner arc. 

My recollection is that the previous discussion on this topic concluded with different interpretations of this sentence. Let's come back to this in a moment.


(C)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011Jul/0005.html

Eyeballing the 4 renderings, only the 1st rendering follows (A).


Now let's get back to (B).  Are you suggesting that a valid interpretation of (B) was intended to be in direct conflict with (A)?  That's seems bizarre to me.  Further, the new proposed text reenforces the 45° requirement of (A) and thus makes it even clearer that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th renderings are incorrect.  In fact, with *only* (A) -- i.e. just removing (B) and doing no further editing -- it remains clear that only the 1st rendering is correct.


Put another way...

I think the only interpretations of (B) that should have been considered valid are ones that don't conflict with (A). Further, I think the better course is to consider refining the language of (B) [or just removing the sentence] such that the invalid interpretations are more obviously excluded by (A).


What am I missing?

Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:27:40 UTC