- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 17:54:54 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `Better name for gray()?`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: drop gray() function` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <dael> Topic: Better name for gray()?<br> <dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4621<br> <dael> leaverou: gray100% is white and gray 0% is black. Everyone agreed different name<br> <dael> leaverou: It's been a long time. I asked on twitter and my blog back then. I linked to the results<br> <dael> leaverou: Seems most people don't find it intuitive.<br> <dael> leaverou: People voted for simple argument rgb and gray isn't defined in rgb terms<br> <dael> leaverou: Not sure how much we should take it into account.<br> <dael> leaverou: I still stand by gray isn't a good name. White or black might be better. white 100% could make sense<br> <dael> leaverou: It's being impl so change is now or never<br> <bkardell_> should we try to do a post and evangelize with a good explanation along with the poll, just to check?<br> <dael> AmeliaBR: Agree it's surprising at 100 but gray(70%) to talk about a gray is something I've seen in design forums. If we are switcing I would argue l or lightness instead of white or black because then we have same confusion that 0% white is black<br> <dael> leaverou: L is good. lightness sounds like a filter, but not strong<br> <dael> AmeliaBR: I have same, lightness is close to brightness. L would be happy for me<br> <dael> bkardell_: Won't people ask what L means?<br> <dael> smfr: Can't google L<br> <tantek> what does the L in HSL stand for then?<br> <dael> florian: Not sure it's needed, but argument against gray is that in photographic field people speak as 80% as a middle gray and they mean 50% in lab. That's the stanard gray in photography<br> <dael> chris: They're talking about luminence<br> <AmeliaBR> s/80%/18%/<br> <dael> florian: Right so if gray 18% means something else it's not nice<br> <dael> fantasai: White and black are not much better than gray<br> <chris> monochrome?<br> <dael> Rossen_: If we did white or black are we signing up for both?<br> <dael> myles: 0 means none of it. For black(0) would mean same as black(100) and so that's why I'm for white<br> <dael> chris: What about monochrome? Makes hughless<br> <dael> leaverou: So long<br> <dael> florian: Any color is monochrome<br> <smfr> s/hughless/hueless/<br> <chris> lab(foo% 0 0)<br> <dael> TabAtkins: leaverou hit nail on head. Most suggestions will be longer than lab % 0 0 which is what gray does. gray isn't much of a savings. I prefer stick with gray or drop function<br> <dael> AmeliaBR: Any syntactic problem with making 2nd and 3rd value of lab options?<br> <dael> TabAtkins: I don't think there's precident for that<br> <dael> florian: I like it<br> <tantek> this sounds like a bunch of new bikeshedding and multiple options being considered that should first be added to the list in the GitHub issue comment thread rather than a phone call<br> <dael> chris: I think will be confusing<br> <dael> leaverou: Why privleage one coordinate?<br> <dael> AmeliaBR: Then I would argue drop gray. As florian pointed out gray(50%) isn't want people think of as 50% in design due to color space the shorthand isn't helpful<br> <dael> chris: Fine with that<br> <dael> myles: lab seems worse for people that don't know colors. What does lab mean?<br> <dael> leaverou: rgb is no more intuitive it's just been used for years<br> <dael> AmeliaBR: But people are familiar with it I'd be happy to have a one function rgb. But let's not have gray function that doens't do what people expect<br> <dael> Rossen_: Are we saying gray won't work as intended and will be unintuitive?<br> <dael> Rossen_: If we discount that half the people vots for rgbx which worked at the time everyone else voted gray<br> <dael> florian: We're defining it to work on l of lab and people mean 50% gray in srgb space. gray 15% in srgb is what people would see with 50% in lab<br> <chris> 50% shades of gray<br> <bkardell_> what about just mono?<br> <dael> fantasai: If using % in lab people will think of it as the gray function no matter the name. Calling it lightness or gray or whatever will not change the effect if they're thinking in srgb. Why not call it gray?<br> <dael> florian: Call it gray in do it in srgb<br> <dael> fantasai: gray makes it obvious the midpoint. That's useful. People that work with gray understand white and black and near and far ends. Whatever we call it people will be disappointed because not in the color space they want<br> <dael> myles: Maybe take an optional param<br> <dael> fantasai: Or we do single value lab and rgb functions. THis is syntax sugar. Want to make most common thing work<br> <dael> chris: A gray thing with an optional param to say warmer or cooler<br> <AmeliaBR> I'd argue for both `rgb(18%)` expanding to `rgb(18% 18% 18%)` and for `lab(50%)` expanding to `lab(50% 0 0)`. Don't use `gray()` because it's not clear which one it would be.<br> <dael> Rossen_: Since people are starting to impl let's get to a resolution or live with gray. Strong canadate names over gray?<br> <dael> bkardell_: monochrome was too long, would mono work?<br> <dael> TabAtkins: Don't generally go for shortening words as makes it hard to understand<br> <dael> chris: 3 options. Drop function. Keep as gray. Rename it now. smfr is impl so can't mess around with name<br> <dael> florian: Which gray is it?<br> <dael> chris: L as currently spec<br> <dael> Rossen_: Can we live with dropping?<br> <dael> Rossen_: I will take silence as a yes<br> <dael> bkardell_: It's less important than lab.<br> <dael> chris: You're not losing anything<br> <dael> Rossen_: Objections to drop gray() function<br> <dael> RESOLVED: drop gray() function<br> <bkardell_> we can always bring it back up<br> <dael> Rossen_: We can go back to these argumenents if we re-introduce<br> <dael> fantasai: Should we take up single value lab or rgb as equating to gray?<br> <chris> noooooo<br> <dael> TabAtkins: I don't think it's worthwile enough to take up.<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4621#issuecomment-572183475 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2020 17:54:55 UTC