- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 23:15:47 -0700
- To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 09/07/2010 09:43 PM, Simon Fraser wrote: > On Sep 7, 2010, at 8:15 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:59 PM, fantasai<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: >>> And you'd rather use a comma than "to"? I think it's clearer to use "to" >>> since we're separating the colors with commas. >> >> I prefer commas because it's more consistent, and it's how nearly >> every programming language does functions, particularly javascript. >> >>> While we're at it, the use of a comma to separate the geometry from the >>> colors also bothers me for the same reason. >>> >>> How about >>> linear-gradient(<position> [to<position>]? as<color>,<color>, ...) >>> ? >> >> That seems even worse to me. ^_^ >> >>> If the problem is DOM access, why not define different interfaces for >>> them (LinearBoxGradient and LinearAngleGradient), but leave the parsed >>> syntax the same? >> >> That's smfr's call. What do you think, Simon? Would that be sufficient? > > It doesn't help with interpolation for animation. And how would different functional notation improve that? It's just notation. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2010 06:16:23 UTC