Re: [css-shapes] Positioning <basic-shapes> summary, v2

On 10/29/2013 01:50 PM, Alan Stearns wrote:
> [...]

I think that was a pretty good summary of the issue. :)

> An additional drawback that applies somewhat to both approaches is that we
> haven't yet defined <new-position> or exactly what the CSS-style rectangle
> syntax should be. So I expect there will be some rounds of bikeshedding on
> these topics. For A, I believe that results in the shape() function moving
> to the next module level. For B, I believe that results in holding up the
> current level until we reach agreement on these two items.

While I'm sympathetic to the scheduling concerns, I think it's more
responsible for us to hold up the specs for an extra month or two
to resolve these issues to provide the best feature design for authors,
than to increase the amount of syntactic options and backwards-
compatibility concerns they have to juggle just because we wanted to
ship Masking a few weeks earlier.

~fantasai

Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 00:52:17 UTC