W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2009

Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2009-08-12

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:41:54 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0908131641m719ef44elf804f71c72e1433a@mail.gmail.com>
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

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:

I've created a separate thread to talk about it.

Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 23:42:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:38 UTC