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

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