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

Re: [css3-images] simplifying radial gradients

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 10:07:24 -0700
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <853D12FB-5CDD-49FC-BE63-61393D582839@gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Right, OK. The main arguments are detailed in this post:


Since my main points are about the complexity that is created by the component values, where the values have complicated side effects on each other, the post is necessarily long, with examples, and examination of the examples. It is in a thread where I responded to Brian Manthos, because in his post he thought that having many different complicated interactions of values was a good thing, so that quoting part is also a bit long right at the beginning. 

On Oct 7, 2011, at 9:08 AM, L. David Baron wrote:

> On Thursday 2011-10-06 08:50 -0700, Brad Kemper wrote:
>> I would love to resolve within two weeks. Unfortunately, when the
>> main person I need to resolve it with has said "I've decided to
>> reject [Brad's] proposal for simplifying radial gradients", and
>> doesn't suggest any alternatives to the problem (or acknowledge
>> the problem), it makes it tough to try to work out a resolution
>> that is satisfactory to all (or even good enough to most). I don't
>> feel it was nearly as widely reviewed as linear-gradient was, and
>> so far the only ones to consider my complaints (and say anything
>> on the list) were Tab (the author of this part of the spec) and
>> Brian (an implementor who probably feels that the large effort he
>> contributed to implement radial-gradient in IE10 should not be
>> wasted). It might help if more WG members who are generally
>> familiar with the radial gradients spec can read and consider my
>> in-list comments, and comment back on them (agree that they are
>> valid points, or tell me that I am off my rocker).
> I think it would help other WG members (at the very least, this one)
> to follow and respond constructively to the discussion if you
> provided better links to things that you are referring to.  For
> example, in this message, you've referred a number of times to your
> proposal for simplifying radial gradients, yet you have not provided
> a link to it.  (Nor, in his reply, did Tab provide a link to his
> response.)
> A lot of threads on this list (which has become very high-volume)
> are extremely long and involve a lot of corrections of
> misunderstandings, etc. (which not everyone wants to read), and then
> statements of new proposals hidden deep within the thread.  You have
> to remember (1) that the more messages there are, the fewer people
> will read them and (2) that if your messages are incomprehensible to
> those who haven't read *all* of the prior discussion, you're going
> to end up in a two person debate.
> Or, to put it another way:  If your goal is to help others
> understand (and thus maybe agree with) your arguments, it helps to
> (1) state those arguments clearly in a single place and (2) link to
> that place when you refer to it.
> -David
> -- 
> 𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
> 𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
Received on Friday, 7 October 2011 17:07:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:05 UTC