- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 07:33:59 +0000
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
> From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net] > I'm not comfortable with normatively requiring a particular gradient > form or a particular type of corner join in css3-background. I don't > think we have clear answers as to what would look best--other than it > should be a type of conic gradient--so I want to leave implementations > free to experiment. It's fine IMO to leave this detail of border > rendering undefined in CSS3: it gives it a chance to evolve as > implementers learn from each other and from author feedback. I understand the intent. But I am not comfortable with recommending that a CR property have an undefined behavior that is important to designers just as it is seeing broad adoption. It's one thing for browsers to experiment with background gradients behind -moz, -webkit, -ms or -o. The author can and must choose to depend on such features. But if it's a side-effect of border-radius in the next Firefox or IE, the author has no choice in the matter. One browser may use a gradient, and the other may not. Or they may do it differently. So while both finally agree on the shape of the border based on the same syntax, a new interop issue has been introduced when 2+ border colors are specified. If we don't know what this should look like and would like to experiment further, we can keep css3-background at the WD stage. Or we can remove this recommendation; this will allow border-radius to interoperate in a testable manner and browsers can still experiment with gradient transitions behind the prefixed version of this property until CSS4, if they so desire. If authors *do* want us to recommend incompatibility in this area so that browser vendors can gather their feedback, it's a different matter. I am not getting that message, however. So again, I would love to hear from other implementors.
Received on Tuesday, 26 January 2010 07:34:37 UTC