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

Re: [css4-images] Color stop syntax

From: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 17:20:19 +0300
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FA1DB33D-DFC6-4932-8BE4-1B319984A567@w3.org>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Itís only a pair now, in the future it might be extended to allow for more things. For example, Rik Cabanier recently suggested in a discussion we had that it might be useful to allow an optional midpoint, like Adobe products traditionally supported. Of course, in that case, a specific relative order would be necessary, since they would both be of the same type.

As an author, I find it easy to remember the order of values, but I find it even easier when I don't have to commit any order to memory. This might have to do with the way my memory works: I first learn the tokens I need to use, and then their order is an additional piece of information I need to store.

My experience seems to be on par with what I hear from most other authors at conferences when this topic comes up. In fact, ever since I joined W3C and the CSSWG, they often bring it up themselves, to complain that a specific order is mandatory! When that happens, I explain that it's needed for disambiguation, which is also a useful way for them to remember when a specific order is necessary. However, disambiguation is not a problem here, so that mnemonic device goes to the trash.

Having only two values doesn't seem to be an issue in shorthands: The columns [1] shorthand only accepts two values as well, but it accepts them in any order.

I understand the arguments against allowing the position to be first, but I think flexibility and ease of recall is a higher goal than subjective readability. But that's just me :) 

[1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-multicol/#columns

On Sep 23, 2012, at 03:57, Brad Kemper wrote:

> On Sep 22, 2012, at 2:45 AM, Lea Verou <lea@w3.org> wrote:
> 
>> Your arguments could apply to most CSS shorthands. Do you disagree with them as well?
>> For example, background could easily have a "50% black" sequence.
> 
> That's not the same. This is not a sequence of many different values as with background. It is a pair: a color and a length. It is more like saying "to top" instead of "top to".  I'm an author, and I find it pretty easy to remember the order when there are only two possibilities, and one is clearer than the other. 
Received on Sunday, 23 September 2012 14:20:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:00 GMT