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

Re: Rationale for using RGB Values?

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 07:31:25 -0500 (EST)
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
cc: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0012310730510.13608-100000@tux.w3.org>
This seems like a reasonable proposal for the current techniques document
actually.

Charles McCN

On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

  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




-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
until 6 January 2001 at:
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Sunday, 31 December 2000 07:31:28 GMT

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