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

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

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:22:15 -0700
Message-ID: <52705F47.5030504@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 10/29/2013 06:10 PM, Alan Stearns wrote:
> On 10/29/13 5:51 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I agree, but that's why I listed this one last. The more important thing
> is whether we accommodate both SVG and CSS syntax and percentage
> interpretation at the cost of some duplication, or if we decide to only
> include CSS syntax.

If we could allow for positioning conventions in a way that
syntactically made it obvious why you should use one version
vs. the other, I'd be happy with that. For example rectangle()
and inset() both create rectangles, but inset() indicates by
its name in what way it's different from rectangle().

In the proposal you have right now, there's no clue why there
are two very different syntaxes and that the difference is
in how percentages are handled.

The result is two inexplicably different syntaxes for doing
pretty much the same thing, plus a lack of clue in what way
they are functionally different.

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 01:22:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:51:03 UTC