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

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

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 10:09:15 -0800
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <75A45353-E5C4-4874-887D-676FD02FCFE9@gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>

On Dec 6, 2011, at 5:02 PM, fantasai wrote:

> 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.

Aside from disagreeing that about allowing less-readable order, I still have a problem with having to write out 'ellipse' much more often. I used to be able to write this:

radial-gradient(closest-corner, yellow, blue)

But now I have to be longer and more explicit, like this:

radial-gradient(ellipse to closest-corner, yellow, blue)

That is a big downgrade, IMO. It could be solved with this:

   [ circle?  <length>? ] | [ ellipse?  <length>{2}? ] |
   [ [ circle | ellipse ] to]? <closest/farthest-corner-side> 
[ at <position ]?
, <color-stops>)

I'd rather this be settled now, before last call, than to be objecting during last call, or waiting until there are more implementations using yet another syntax that could change again.
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 18:09:57 UTC

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