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

Re: [css3-images] simplifying radial gradients

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 15:18:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAt1N=C=xkCV0mPuyh9mJG7D+KT_JjFW85N-cRTHLBupQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, www-style@w3.org
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 4:32 AM, Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com> wrote:
> On 7/10/2011 8:44 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Brad Kemper<brad.kemper@gmail.com>  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).
>> Don't be ridiculous, Brad.  I sent a (long) email explaining my
>> decision.  It helps no one to pretend that you're being put upon and
>> summarily dismissed.
> Really?

Yes.  I made a factual statement, which you can verify by looking at
the archives.

> The spec process seems like a steamroller. You can object, say no, or doing
> something else but at some point you realize that the steamroller doesn't
> stop.
> Even though I have a true rational based on experiments regarding
> un-premultiplied gradients where I could lodge a formal objection with the
> w3c, I am hesitate in doing so since the spec author may presume that I'm
> being rude.
> What you fail to realize Tab is that healthy debate can make a well defined
> spec. I learned that from my questing of Brad during the development of the
> B&BM 3, especially with box-shadow where the best came out with Brad. This
> was happening when you first appeared on www-style in mid 2008. CSS has come
> along way since then but the spec process has gone backwards.

"Healthy debate" is not the same thing as "everyone gets a pony".  Not
every argument results in a compromise.  Not every point of view can
be integrated.

I read every single email that gets sent to the list.  I respond in
sometimes-ridiculous length when it is warranted.  I give serious
thought and consideration to every suggestion relevant to my work.
That doesn't mean that everyone's going to be happy at the end of the
day.  That's fine; what matters is that I end up with something that
both I and the WG as a whole is happy with.

Received on Friday, 7 October 2011 22:19:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:05 UTC