Brad: > I go further, to say that the shape keyword is actually > pretty redundant when lengths are given for size. I agreed with you in the past, and do in the present on this. For explicit sizing, shape is completely unnecessary (read: at best redundant). And this is part of what makes the 09/08 grammar preferable to the new grammar. Brad: > My comment included a preference for <size><shape> in that > order, which you can see below, and which Brian also seems to prefer, I don't have a preference on this one but recalled that you voiced a preference. As such, my A-J grammar options from yesterday were respectful of that preference by including both orderings as grammar options. Further, I would argue that the current reordering flexibility... radial-gradient(25px circle, red, blue); radial-gradient(circle closest-side, red, blue); ... is simply gratuitous and potentially confusing for style consumption (reading markup from a different author). In light of the grammar not allowing (shape) position reordering, I think it would be an improvement to allow only (A1 & A2) or (B1 & B2). A1. radial-gradient(25px circle, red, blue); A2. radial-gradient(closest-side circle, red, blue); B1. radial-gradient(25px circle, red, blue); B2. radial-gradient(closest-side circle, red, blue); Allowing this partial reordering flexibility only for these 2 subfields of grammar (all 4) offers flexibility at the cost of confusion. I'm not a fan. Similarly for ellipse. I find it somewhat disheartening that in the interests of "readability" the grammar is being changed in a way that actually adds confusion. But sometimes that's the way of things.Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2011 22:45:05 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:08 UTC