- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:35:04 -0500
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Brad Kemper<brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 17, 2009, at 11:07 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> > wrote: > >> Brad Kemper wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 15, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>>>> >>>>> What I am against is adding complexity and confusion to the grammar >>>>> just to >>>>> serve some extreme edge cases. >>>> >>>> It only adds complexity when you want it. In the simple, common cases >>>> it has no effect at all. >>> >>> It adds unnecessary complexity to the grammar. That's a bad thing. >> >> It is, in fact, simpler to re-use existing syntactic constructs > > Simpler for who? Implementors? I'm talking about simpler to read, > understand, etc. > > A single key word is simpler to parse mentally than five, or than a string > of measurements that are based on a completely different coordinate system > than the color-stop measurements that need to be in the grammar anyway. I'm thinking about removing the second bg-position, and just making it *always* determine the ending point by rotating the starting point around. I'd still keep a single full bg-position. Thoughts? (Interestingly, the syntax would then look like just "<bg-position> || <angle>".) ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 20 August 2009 20:36:05 UTC