W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2010

Re: [css3-background] border-radius color transitions using gradients recommended but undefined

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:18:50 -0800
Message-ID: <4B84544A.7030300@inkedblade.net>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
CC: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 02/23/2010 02:02 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
>> I would appreciate less threat and more constructive criticism, Sylvain.
> Threats ? Expecting that a Candidate Recommendation can be
> interoperably implemented and tested in full is threatening ? Expecting
> that authors not get opted in visibly different renderings depending on
> what browser they use is threatening ?
> Well, so be it. I'm sorry if my standards are so threatening but I'm not
> going to lower them for the sake of recommending a suggestion.
> Either we can specify the behavior that authors want - since they will
> have limited control on the result, this should matter a great deal
> imo -  in an interoperable, testable way. Or, as you pointed out on multiple
> occasions, we want to experiment.
> I remain completely comfortable with the latter as long as it does not happen at
> authors'expense by forcing it on them through a standard property. If we need
> implementation experience to get it right, so be it.
>> There is considerably more detail that I could specify for gradients if I had a
>> week to spend in a university library researching the correct mathematical models
>> and working out the exact geometry for normal and degenerate cases. I cannot tell
>> from what you write whether that is something you're demanding or not, and it's
>> very frustrating to me that you are so angry with the current spec yet so unclear
>> about what it is you want from it.
> Given the record to date, I don't believe I am the angry one. Baffled and
> completely mystified, for sure. And please, let us not extrapolate from one
> underspecified recommendation to 'the current spec'. We are implementing
> the current spec. As you're in a position to know how seriously we're taking
> it, I very much doubt hyperbole is strictly necessary.
> If we can't specify this in Level 3, we can leave it out for the next level. This
> does not preclude experimentation by browser vendors behind their respective prefix.
> I don't understand why that outcome is unacceptable.

I just told you, I can't work with this. I'm a spec editor, not a mindreading
psychic. How about you stop defending yourself and answer the goddamn question?

The question you did not answer was posted as follows:

On 02/23/2010 fantasai wrote in <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Feb/0209.html>:
 > Would s/suggested/recommended/ satisfy you?

Here's another one for you:

If that is not sufficient to satisfy you, what details remain to be specified
before you are satisfied? E.g. which parameters of the gradient do you want
specified that are not currently specified in the proposal given here:

Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 22:19:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:43 UTC