- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 23:35:45 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-color-5] When mixing hue, there are two ways round the hue range`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: Publish a version with all keywords but longer` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <dael> Topic: [css-color-5] When mixing hue, there are two ways round the hue range<br> <dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4735<br> <dael> leaverou: When interpolate between hues usually you don't want interpolate in same way. If going between hue 0 and hue 400 you don't want a whole rainbow<br> <dael> leaverou: What we put in spec is by dfault use shortest arc which does expected in common. Have keywords for longest arc etc and also as-specified keyword to allow raw interp<br> <dael> leaverou: Wasn't sure if all needed. Esp specified one. If impl want to store value as normalized keyword doesn't allow<br> <dael> leaverou: I put algo in spec which tweaked by dbaron. Good to get sanity check.<br> <smfr> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-color-5/#hue-interpolation<br> <Rossen_> q?<br> <dael> fantasai: Can you summerize the proposal?<br> <dael> leaverou: Do we need all 5 keywords?<br> <dael> leaverou: We need shorter b/c that's what you expect in most cases. Do we need specified which is interp as specified so if you go between 0 and 720 2 rainbows. Need increasing, decreasing, longest or is that completist<br> <dael> fantasai: Are there use cases? We can add keywords. If there's not a use case might want to note possibility for future reference in case we need to add later. If not a use case don't need to add.<br> <dael> fantasai: I think it's usefult o think of all and makes sure keywords are a set that make sense even if we only include 1 or 2 in spec<br> <dael> dbaron: Intent is these would eventually apply to all gradients, animations, and color mix funct or only some?<br> <dael> leaverou: Good to design with that in mind. Not sure how text for animation snad gradients but if we have a syntax making sense it would be good to have the option<br> <miriam> q+<br> <astearns> for gradients and animations the workaround would be to add more steps/stops to mimic the non-short behavior?<br> <dael> fantasai: My suggestion is draft all in spec, put an issue in saying we're not sure if we need all and we might limit to a subset with the subset that makes sense to you and also note might expand to gradients. Encourage people to think what that would look like<br> <tantek> +1 to publishing at least one draft with more keywords to get the ideas published<br> <dael> fantasai: Early stage WD so makes sense to put ideas and poke at them with people like Una to make cases<br> <leaverou> http://localhost:8002/csswg-drafts/css-color-5/Overview.html#hue-interpolation<br> <leaverou> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-color-5/#hue-interpolation<br> <dael> leaverou: Does math make sense? This is the section ^<br> <florian> q+<br> <Rossen_> ack miriam<br> <dael> miriam: THinking of specified I'd have use cases when comes to gradient. As pointed out in chat that could be do with extra stops.<br> <dael> miriam: Can't think of cases when mixing colors. I don't know if that's separate but might be. Math makes sense. Shorter and longer fall apart at 180 which maybe implies need to determine direction without them<br> <Rossen_> ack florian<br> <dael> florian: I haven't reviewed math for correctnss, but intuitive seems right. Longer seems least useful. Wanting longer for being longer seems odd. Might pick if gives right thing.<br> <miriam> +1 to longer being less useful than increase/decrease<br> <dael> florian: Approach about putting in spec now with note for use cases sounds good<br> <dael> dbaron: On math have a PR to tweak. I think set notation doesn't match pseudo code and I think pseudo code is right. I have some weaks for 180 case but it's not clear that's what we want<br> <dael> leaverou: 180 chris said we can pick one as long as it's well defined. Doesn't matter increasing or decreasing<br> <dael> florian: Makes sense. If you have a preference you can say it.<br> <dael> fantasai: We use 'closest' in radial gradients so maybe that instead of 'shorter'?<br> <dael> leaverou: Than what longer?<br> <dael> fantasai: 'father'?<br> <dael> florian: I don't think longer is needed so I don't mind not having a good replacement<br> <fantasai> s/father/farthest/<br> <tantek> near and far, close and distant, short and long ?<br> <dael> fantasai: We have farthest and closest side<br> <dael> leaverou: That's differ than angles<br> <dael> Rossen_: Apart from bikeshedding I hear 2 proposals. 1) let's push a version of the spec with all the keywords initially or as many as we want so we encourage more incubation.<br> <dael> Rossen_: 2) I hear agreement that longer doesn't seem useful. I didn't hear a use case to prove otherwise.<br> <dael> Rossen_: I don't want to bikeshed.<br> <dael> Rossen_: SHould we resolve to keep the keywords becides longer and publish?<br> <dael> leaverou: I'd rather hear from Una and Adam before we resolve.<br> <dael> fantasai: This isn't final. We're drafting for dicussion to encourage participation. I think it's fine to put it all in the draft, explain the thoughts, and enougage feedback. We can publish often<br> <dael> Rossen_: Objections to Publish a version with all keywords but longer?<br> <fantasai> "Publish early, publish often"<br> <tantek> +1<br> <dael> RESOLVED: Publish a version with all keywords but longer<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4735#issuecomment-652696214 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2020 23:35:47 UTC