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

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

From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 22:38:41 -0700
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BEDED4B9-736B-4B94-AC40-05EF8516B986@adobe.com>

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 donít 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.


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

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