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

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

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 11:34:07 -0700
Message-ID: <4F6CC21F.9060007@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
Forwarding to www-style...

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [css3-images] CSS Gradient Notation
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:01:52 -0700
From: Robert Biggs <rbiggs@ymail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>

That's fine. After thinking about the issue of directional problems that the
prepositions solve in relation to other values, I've also decided that is the
better solution.

On Mar 23, 2012, at 12:11 AM, fantasai wrote:

> Robert Biggs wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I was checking out the latest document http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images to check up on the status of CSS gradients. I have
>> to say I was shocked and dismayed to see that you're proposition the requirement for prepositions to be used with the
>> positional keywords. I was scratching my head for quite some time. Is that to make it clearer to English speakers what the
>> keywords do? Requiring English preposition will not make it clearer to people who don't speak English. If you want to make it
>> more grammatical English, you should include the indefinite article, e.g. "to the bottom left". Or maybe an adverb or a
>> gerund: "flowing towards the bottom right". And for radial gradients: "positioned at the closest side". And while you're at
>> it, you could get rid of the hyphens in the radial keywords.
>> I'm being facetious. When the Webkit guys first presented CSS gradients, the Mozilla people complained about the notation
>> being too complicated and came up with a simpler notation. I'm sure you laughed at being required to write from(color),
>> to(color). Funny how you're now suggesting that we have to use prepositions ("to" and "at") with keywords. Don't hobble CSS
>> with English grammatical requirements. No body needs an understanding of English grammar to write HTML or JavaScript or CSS,
>> until now.
>> By the way, in Spanish, the word for "to" is "a" and the word for at is "a". Spanish speakers will not see your prepositions
>> as a clarification of anything.
> Hi Robert,
> This is an official response from the CSS Working Group.
> The CSS Working Group reviewed your comment on linear-gradient() and considered
> the following options:
>  A. Sticking to the 'to <endpoint-keyword>' syntax adopted in the September 2011 WD
>  B. Reverting to the old '<startpoint-keyword>' syntax in the earlier WDs
>  C. Supporting both syntaxes
> It was pointed out that gradient generators outputting unprefixed linear-gradient()
> syntax use the old syntax. It was also pointed out that the syntax for gradients
> have changed multiple times during the lifetime of the module.
> The Working Group resolved to take the first option, which is, to reject your
> request to drop the preposition in linear-gradient() "because this has been
> tweaked too much. It's a reasonable compromise and changing it is not OK any
> more."
> The minutes for this meeting are available here:
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Mar/0195.html
> Please let me know if you find this acceptable.
> ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 23 March 2012 18:34:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:13 UTC