- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:16:45 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Sep 21, 2012, at 1:44 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> Neither I nor anyone in the 300 authors in the audience could see what was >> wrong with it, until I gave up and decided to move on to the next demo. >> Of course, I later realized what the problem was. The color stop position >> was before the color. But why is that disallowed? There doesnĄ¯t seem to be >> any reason to require it and traditionally in CSS order doesnĄ¯t matter when >> disambiguation is possible regardless of it. > > Probably because I accidentally made it order-dependent early on, and > never thought to change it. I don't see any particular reason to keep > it order-dependent - as you say, CSS traditionally lets us use any > order as long as it's unambiguous. I don't think it was accidental. I recall us discussing it, and agreeing that '50% black' sounded more like the description of a mid-tone gray than like a position. Especially to designers who had worked in print that used to spec screened colors that way. I also think it is easier to learn when the order is always the same. There is no confusion about whether it means something different when it is in a different position. We also don't allow the color stop list to come before the direction part, when in theory we could have.
Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 21:17:24 UTC