- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 14:46:54 -0700
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote: > [Tab Atkins:] >> >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> >> wrote: >> > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#linear-gradients >> > >> > I’ve never heard of start, end, before, or after used with linear >> > gradients until now. Nor do I have any clue what they are supposed to >> mean. >> > >> > Did I oversleep a month or something? >> > >> > Why are we adding arbitrary new capabilities now? I thought we had an >> > ED that we could move forward yesterday; now I have no idea. >> >> Simon Fraser suggested it, others gave good use-cases. > > Then, can we hear more about them ? As Brian is pointing out and following discussions > here and face-to-face, we are trying to converge on a stable specification. We split the > spec across two levels for that exact purpose. You were talking about moving to LC not a > week ago but here we are adding an extra layer of lipstick on the pig. > > If these are important use-cases then I have no confidence that we are anywhere close to > LC. If they're not then why can't they wait for Level 4 ? Is there evidence that those authors > who use the prefixed implementations are in pain without this ? They were good use-cases; they're not vital. I suggested kicking them to level 4 just below the section quoted above. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 11 August 2011 21:47:50 UTC