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

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

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:47:56 +0000
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E10D60091@TK5EX14MBXC111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

> From: Brad Kemper [mailto:brad.kemper@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 6:52 AM
> To: Sylvain Galineau
> Cc: fantasai; www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [css3-background] border-radius color transitions using
> gradients recommended but undefined
> Could you also live with #2? I kind of like the level of detail that's
> been put in of what is to be suggested, if a vendor is going to attempt
> it, in order to provide some minimal guidance. (as an aside, I would
> also add that on any border-radius in which the inner edge of the
> corner has an effective radius of zero, then the tip of the cone for
> the conic blend should align with that sharp corner.) I can also
> imagine some simple tests similar to what's been described here. But if
> we don't even mention the idea of a gradient blend at the corner, then
> we lose the ability to provide guidance (and a minimal level of
> consistency) to any implementor who wants to give it a shot.

I'm comfortable with my choice.

Given that the issue was that the level of detail was insufficient to even
assess how interoperable the result would be, I'm happy with leaving it undefined
until such time as we are able to specify this at a suitable level of detail, never 
mind several browser vendors actually working on their implementation.

We're in CR. If it's undefined or vaguely defined and it's unclear whether/when it's going 
to be implemented, it's at risk. Given that we dropped box-shadow despite wide support and 
popularity, I'm quite comfortable leaving this for later as well. All available evidence 
indicates this recommendation is at risk. 
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 18:48:35 UTC

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