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

Re: [css3-images] closest side radial gradients

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 10:48:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDB-NMHKgt4G9fsck1zhib_X82Ur4Etdq_sBpvxeJ1sqxQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Private reply since that's my only option at the moment apparently.
> 1 - Your change of the meaning of "closest-side" makes it so different that I don't think that term reasonably applies at all anymore.  I wasn't being sarcastic or insulting in my prior mail.  I was seriously trying to understand what you were trying to remap it to and I don't think your remapping reasonably aligns with "closest-side".  We should leave closest-side as it is, with its current meaning for CSS3.
> 2 - If we want to add something like "closest-opposing-side" (or whatever we call it) in a future draft such as CSS4, that can be easily done and would not introduce incompatibilities with the "closest-side" as it is in the current WD.  [And I would likely even agree such new keywords/phrasing are useful and valuable for CSS4.]
> Tab's not saying it exactly the same way I am, but I think his thinking and conclusions are along similar lines.
> Tab - Please correct where I'm going wrong here.

Agreed completely with both points.  I understand where Brad's coming
from, but I still think that the current spec definition is the most
natural definition for the keyword's name.  I think we should look
into adding more implicit-sizing keywords in the level 4 draft.

Received on Thursday, 3 November 2011 17:49:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:06 UTC