W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2000

Re: Rationale for using RGB Values?

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 14:17:09 -0800
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20001230141415.00a73a90@garth.idyllmtn.com>
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
Cc: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 09:51 AM 12/30/2000 , Sean B. Palmer wrote:
>(Hakon:)
>Use numbers, not names, for colors
>Color names also vary from one platform to another. CSS supports 16 color
>names: aqua, black, blue, fuchsia, gray, green, lime, maroon, navy, olive,
>purple, red, silver, teal, yellow, white. Some browsers have chosen to
>support additional color names, but there is no definite list. 

I suggest instead that we update the requirement (when it becomes
part of a WCAG 2.0 CSS techniques document) to state "use the
16 named colors defined by CSS level 1, or use RGB colors" instead
of just using RGB colors.  I think those 16 should be considered
a reasonably safe list and I don't think that access problems will
result (which can't be eliminated by turning off CSS!) if those
are used.

I find a prohibition against using 'color: black' or 'background: white'
to be absurd.

--Kynn


-- 
Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                    http://kynn.com/
Sr. Engineering Project Leader, Reef-Edapta       http://www.reef.com/
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet   http://www.idyllmtn.com/
Contributor, Special Edition Using XHTML     http://kynn.com/+seuxhtml
Unofficial Section 508 Checklist           http://kynn.com/+section508
Received on Saturday, 30 December 2000 17:16:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:08 GMT