- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 11:04:31 -0400
- To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-images-4/#color-interpolation-hint > > This feature lets authors adjust the interpolation between two color stops. > The current syntax uses a fake color stop with a position and no color as an > instruction to interpolate differently between the two real stops on either > side of it. The position of the color stop is used as a parameter to control > the interpolation. > > I'm unconvinced this syntax is a good idea. Using a fake color stop for this > purpose just seems like a hack. If someone accidentally leaves out a color > from a color stop they will trigger this feature accidentally. It also means > there are edge cases we have to check for and reject in the parser, e.g. > consecutive fake color stops. It's also not particularly extensible; we're > consuming this part of the syntax (color-less stop) for a particular feature > that isn't directly related to that syntax. Calling it a "fake color stop" is a bit misleading, and might be leading your thoughts wrong. The <color-stop-list> is a list of <color-stop>s and <color-stop-hint>s. The grammar of a <color-stop-hint> is just [<length>|<percentage>], which does happen to look like a <color-stop> if you forget the (mandatory) color, but I think that's a distraction. The "color-less stop" wasn't very valuable, when I had it. It was just an attempt to do this kind of interpolation, but it did it with more linear stops, and wasn't as useful. > For an obscure feature like this, can't we afford to be more explicit. e.g. > attach an interpolation() function to the color-stop before the interval we > want to change the interpolation of? Or allow interpolation() values to be > interspersed with color stops? Am I the only person who has qualms here? I don't have strong opinions on the syntax, but I don't have any problem with the current syntax, either. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 3 October 2014 15:05:18 UTC