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

Re: Gradient syntax proposal

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:35:04 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0908201335s3ffdca11x70aa848f19357fd7@mail.gmail.com>
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

I'd still keep a single full bg-position.  Thoughts?

(Interestingly, the syntax would then look like just "<bg-position> ||

Received on Thursday, 20 August 2009 20:36:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:38 UTC