- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 00:22:34 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Oct 1, 2013, at 9:01 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > We adopted some general principles for functional notation: > http://wiki.csswg.org/ideas/functional-notation#general-principles > > This included changes to the shapes functional notations > to align them with these principles: > http://wiki.csswg.org/ideas/functional-notation#shapes > > The resolution was recorded here: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Feb/0325.html > > Were the edits never made, or was the resolution overturned > and I didn't notice? If we should have agreed on them (wasn't in Paris at the time). Then I would like to formally object to some of these proposals. My understanding was that this was proposed but we did not agree to fully adapt these suggested changes but consider them for future specifications. It is unreasonable and unpractical to change the grammar for CSS transforms for example. We may be able to change the grammar on basic shapes (they are just implemented prefixed in Blink and WebKit based browsers). But I am not sure if it is worth it since we already have two (just partly independent) implementations and two specifications using this grammar. Furthermore, the following recommendation: "We recommend shortening the name to rect(), and unifying with the 'clip' value." Is ovetuned by followup resolutions. rect() has a different meaning for the 4 values than rectangle() has, same for inset-rectangle(). We agreed at TPAC Lyon that rect() doesn't do what authors expect anyway. The recommendation for polygon on the other hand was accepted and is in the spec. Greetings, Dirk > > ~fantasai >
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2013 07:23:01 UTC