- 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