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

On Oct 30, 2013, at 1:51 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

> 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.

I seriously consider to drop basic shapes from CSS Masking. I don’t see the discussion going anywhere. Especially nowhere near to a *better* syntax. So far it is just you arguing that we should change the syntax fantasai. That makes me think that this whole conversation is not worthwhile anymore.

Greetings,
Dirk

> 
> ~fantasai
>

Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 05:39:12 UTC