On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote: > Brad Kemper: >> Then if the only reason to hold it back is because of the keyword >> disagreement, then I will be much happier to just accept the >> silly-sounding "downward rightward" syntax for corners, and >> just privately shake my head in disappointment every time I >> have to type it. > > Though I'd prefer to just remove the ward suffice (going back to my original proposal), I can live with that. > > Also I'd prefer "[leftward | rightward] || [downward | upward]" be the order in the grammar for serialization reasons. But that can wait for another day. > > If you ask me two weeks from now (i.e. we haven't moved on), I might withdraw my consent though. > > What are the editors thoughts on this compromise? I'm fairly against having "downward rightward" be a thing. That's ugly and bad. I would greatly prefer "top left to bottom right", despite it being a little longer. Or "toward bottom right", whatever. I would prefer to not address magic corner gradients at all right now. I believe the issues are more subtle than you guys are letting on, and could use more thought to make sure they work well and cleanly. I mean, we went from "this is how corner gradients work" to "omg, *that* is how corner gradients work" over the course of, like, a day. How do we know there aren't more things we might want to do? For example, going back to explicitly defining the startpoint and endpoint of the gradient-line. As well, there are two distinct and very different ways of achieving the magic corner gradient that I know of (adjust the angle, or do the entire thing in objectBoundingBox coords scale). I would like time to evaluate which is actually best. I do not want to hold up unprefixing current gradients while I resolve the above. ~TJReceived on Thursday, 4 August 2011 20:20:43 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:03 UTC