Re: [css3-images] 2011/12/01 ED section 4.2 review notes

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2011, at 12:27 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> I did have a suggested change during our discussions, that would make me
> happier. I don't think I ever got a reply. So the agreement is not quite as
> resounding as you imply (though I think that I could live with it). My
> comment included a preference for <size><shape> in that order, which you can
> see below, and which Brian also seems to prefer, if anything is ordered (his
> option F). I would have said so, if I could have made it to that telecon
> that day. I go further, to say that the shape keyword is actually pretty
> redundant when lengths are given for size. Here is that thread (unquoted
> part below is me from November 25, during Thanksgiving weekend, then the
> next telecon was the one I missed):
[snip]

I don't see any problems with your suggestions, but they also don't
seem to bring any great benefit.  Now that we've solved the core
problem (function arguments too unreadable, and difficult to extend),
have integrated author feedback, and have a resolution and a published
WD with the grammar, I would greatly prefer to not make any more
changes unless they are actually addressing an error or important
omission.  Sorry. ;_;

~TJ

Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2011 21:15:39 UTC