- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:05:22 +0100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Brad Kemper" <brkemper.comcast@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
Also sprach Tab Atkins Jr.:
> Of course, this isn't my baby, it's Hakon's. Hakon, I propose dropping the
> repeat() keyword. We need some form of flex unit to achieve the examples
> you have, but repeat() as-it-is-currently-written is *almost* incompatible
> with flexes. At the very least, it renders them irrelevant except for
> filling in the occasional pixel gap. In order to make repeat() compatible
> with flex units, we'd have to introduce a lot more complexity than currently
> exists (a length argument to repeat(), multiple levels of flex). I think
> that right now we are best served by simply having a border-parts with a
> flex unit, and then coming up with a border-dashes property that can address
> the issue of repeat blocks more naturally. This will make the property
> simpler and more easily implemented, and provide a good structure for a
> future comprehensive fancy-border treatment.
I'm ok with dropping repeat(). As a result the proposal would be
simpler, which is good. Some functionality would be lost, but nothing
I can't live without.
Any opposing votes?
-h&kon
Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Friday, 31 October 2008 21:06:06 UTC