W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2013

Re: [css-shapes] Functional Notation

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 11:53:19 -0700
Message-ID: <524B1A1F.2050805@inkedblade.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 10/01/2013 12:22 AM, Dirk Schulze wrote:
> 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).
> [...] It is unreasonable and unpractical to change the grammar
> for CSS transforms for example. [...] "We recommend shortening
> the name to rect(), and unifying with the 'clip' value." Is
> ovetuned by followup resolutions. [...]

I think you forgot to click on the link there. The resolutions
were recorded as follows, let me quote:

    RESOLVED: adopt the principles in http://wiki.csswg.org/ideas/functional-notation
    RESOLVED: adopt the proposed changes to exclusions in
              http://wiki.csswg.org/ideas/functional-notation except
              for the suggestion to unify rect() and rectangle()

None of which is inconsistent with your concerns.

Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2013 18:53:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:51:02 UTC