W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2012

Re: [css3-images] Fwd: CSS Gradient Notation

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:56:30 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDC12Pg273gn-V1e8LOBjKo=JTzA33a2WYC8siQD=q1cHw@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 8:34 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> So, I see two technical arguments in favor of reverting the change and
> none in favor. Based on that I can't really justify keeping the 'to'.
> The arguments are:
>  1. Reverting is more compatible with existing usage out there, since
>     the older variants of linear-gradient() are compatible with the
>     request to not use 'to'.
>  2. The 'to' preposition is incompatible with the functional notation
>     principles you sent out, and the CSSWG adopted, in
>       http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jan/0933.html
>     Namely, that keywords are only to be used as a last resort for
>     parsing disambiguation where needed.
> The argument in favor of rejecting the comment is that the WG discussed
> the issue already and made a resolution on it and therefore doesn't want
> to reopen the issue. This is an argument, but not a technical one. I'll
> also note we do have additional information, i.e. principle #2, that we
> didn't have when we made that resolution.
> So, weighing the arguments, I'm uncomfortable with rejecting this comment
> without a change.

I'm not changing a thing in this regard without a WG resolution
commanding it.  We've had resolutions for the current syntax, I'm
happy with the current syntax, and the entire syntax *thing* has been
incredibly painful, which another change will not help with.

If you can convince the WG to agree with you, I will happily make the
change.  You've got two weeks until CR.

Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 17:01:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:10 UTC