- From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 02:08:12 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
In short, I agree with Tab here. STOP TRYING TO CHANGE IT (BACK) AGAIN. In long, I don't have the bandwidth today or tomorrow to rehash the argument a 7th time. If you really want to revisit it again, I'll try to find some time on Friday instead of doing real work. Sigh. > -----Original Message----- > From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 8:57 AM > To: fantasai > Cc: www-style@w3.org > Subject: Re: [css3-images] Fwd: CSS Gradient Notation > > 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. > > ~TJ >
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2012 02:08:52 UTC