- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 01:29:48 +0000
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- CC: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
[Brad Kemper:] > On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:36 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > > > "I cannot in good conscience support such a change unless > > linear-gradient and/or it's prefixed versions are renamed (e.g. > > -moz2-linear-gradient or - moz-straight-gradient)". > > > > You've just answered your own concern: this is a vendor decision. As > > are all decisions pertaining to prefixed *proprietary* property. As a > > side note, I will remind you that prefixed properties are invalid per > > CSS; as such it would imo be awkward for the WG to accept/reject a > > change based on proprietary decisions related to invalid CSS. > > Fine. If we make the changes to the meaning of the keywords AND the angle, > so that the only way to reliably create the desired gradient is with IE6+ > "filter" property, then I would like us to also change the name of the CSS > image generator to something like 'straight-gradient()' to reflect how > different it is from previous 'linear-gradient'. Then IE can create > whatever prefixed image generator it wants, even calling it '-ms-foo()' if > it wants, as is its prerogative. Given the trend of both the tone and substance of your arguments I have nothing further to add to this part of the thread. Thank you.
Received on Thursday, 9 June 2011 01:30:19 UTC