W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2011

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

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 17:02:26 -0800
Message-ID: <4EDEBB22.8040902@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 12/06/2011 01:14 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> 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. ;_;

Just change all the examples to use Brad's suggested ordering.
Those two are order-flexible, so no problem.

Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 01:02:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:08 UTC