- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 14:46:28 -0700
- To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote: > Example A > linear-gradient(red 10%, blue 20%, green 15%); > > > Reviewing the language... > > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#color-stop-syntax > # Color-stops must be specified in order. > > What does "must" mean for example A? Does it mean it should be rejected by parser? Does it mean "invalid; renders as transparent"? > > Previously, I've taken it to mean "bad author, we'll fix it for them according to the normative steps". If that interpretation is correct, is "must" really the right word? It's an author conformance criteria. I didn't specify that it made anything invalid, so it doesn't. It does precisely what the spec says, and nothing more. ^_^ >> The step in question is *error-handling* > > Perhaps that's one way to characterize, but it still has a fundamental impact on how the CSS is processed and how the image is rendered (or not). > > Changing it by-default (rather than opt-in) in CSS4 seems detrimental to pages published against CSS3. That's an empirical claim. We're allowed to change things as long as our change doesn't "break the world" - if the changes occur on only a small fraction of pages, or if the change is very minor for the pages on which it occurs, it's safe to change. I argue that both of these conditions are met - if we make this change, it will produce a rendering change only rarely, and the change will be minor. Do you wish to argue the opposite? ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2012 21:47:17 UTC