- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:59:29 -0800
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 02/24/2010 03:15 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
>> From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
>
>
>> Given that on the 3 February 2010 teleconference you said
>> Sylvain: I'm ok with 2 or 3
>
> Yes, that is what I said. And after further conversations with
> my peers we agreed that this was not right. Given the number of
> repetitive messages on this topic between now and then - most of
> them over the past ~24 hours, between you and I - I didn't expect
> the need for clarification this far along. My bad.
(If you'd answered my question ~24 hours ago, then maybe there
would have been fewer repetitive messages.)
Since you've changed your position, let's go back to the question
before the WG 3 weeks ago.
fantasai: we have 5 options
1. Require the sharp transition
2. Drop recommendation for gradient, leave transition undefined
3. Recommend gradient, define color stops
4. Give precise mathematical definition for a gradient that will give
pixel-perfect copies across implementations
5. Drop border-radius
Pick one. Because right now, I don't know what you want. I only
know that you're unhappy with both the current spec and the
proposal I was asked by the WG to produce.
~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 00:00:06 UTC