Re: [css4-images] Color stop syntax

Your arguments could apply to most CSS shorthands. Do you disagree with them as well?
For example, background could easily have a "50% black" sequence.
In practice, authors find CSS shorthands that require a certain order (e.g. font) hard to remember, and avoid using them for that reason. Please note that I’m not speculating here, authors tell me that all the time.
People have their own coding styles, and should be free to. I agree that positions after colors are easier to read, but I wouldn't go as far as to spec my coding style and force everyone to follow it.

On Sep 21, 2012, at 23:16, Brad Kemper wrote:

> 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 doesn’t seem to be
>>> any reason to require it and traditionally in CSS order doesn’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 Saturday, 22 September 2012 09:45:17 UTC