- From: Lea Verou via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 14:13:06 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
FWIW I have no strong opinion about adding `<image-1d>` to `<image>`, I think it's primarily useful for debugging and to follow the principle of least surprise, but I agree the use cases are few and far between. I have a somewhat stronger opinion about allowing `stripes()` in gradient functions. I think given that gradients accept a gradient line *already*, and people use them to specify stripes *already*, allowing `stripes()` in there is simply paving the cowpaths, and allows them to benefit from all existing gradients machinery, without needing separate justification for everything or separate functions that need to be kept in sync. Having separate functions with similar syntax has been a host of issues in the past. Also, nothing prevents us from adding convenience syntax later, if `stripes()` in gradient functions becomes commonly used. But perhaps most importantly, `stripes()` is just one example of `<image-1d>`. There may be more in the future. All I'm arguing for is that gradient lines should be specifiable as `<image-1d>`. The alternative proposal seems to want to add ad hoc methods for every single type of 1d image, which doesn't scale well. -- GitHub Notification of comment by LeaVerou Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7241#issuecomment-1119668133 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 6 May 2022 14:13:08 UTC