- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:41:54 -0500
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Brad Kemper<brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 13, 2009, at 3:15 PM, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org> > wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I don't think that is what he meant, and it is not what I mean. He was >> talking in favor of functional notation within the value of his gradient >> property. I don't see any of what we've been mostly talking about as being a >> difference between me saying gradient should be a separate property (which >> is what Mozilla already has) > > No, we currently use -moz-linear-gradient() and -moz-radial-gradient() as an > image type, i.e., in place of url(). And that is what I want. > > Understood. But that's a separate discussion from the one about color stop > syntax, and the opposite of what Tad said he shred with you on. No it's... no it's not. I have no idea how you got this impression, Brad. In that particular argument you, I, and ROC were all talking about the function vs property angle, not the functional-colorstops vs simpler-colorstops. I *later* talk about color-stop syntax and why the functional notation sucks, but at the point in my email we're discussing, I'm not. So let's all just agree that we agree. ^_^ Also, my proposal is up: http://www.xanthir.com/document/document.php?id=d65df9d10442ef96c2dfe5e1d7bbebf7aa42f2bcf24e68fc3777c4b484fa8a4ce55fed2189cac20ccad8686127f4c08917c4ca8b7614e9f89c2a950ec083a9c6 I've created a separate thread to talk about it. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 23:42:51 UTC