- From: Chris Lilley <Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 22:27:28 +0100 (MET)
- To: "David Perrell" <davidp@earthlink.net>, <www-html@w3.org>, "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>, "Chris Wilson (PSD)" <cwilso@MICROSOFT.com>
On Nov 13, 1:00pm, David Perrell wrote: > Perhaps the above paragraph should be expanded to read: > > "The hexadecimal RGB (#rgb) notation can be any multiple of three > digits. In the case where an output device has greater color resolution > than the RGB values, the values are expanded by replicating digits. For > example, the 12-bit value #fb0 is expanded to #ffbb00 for 24-bit > output. In the case where an output device has less color resolution > than the RGB values, the insignificant digits are ignored. For example, > the 48-bit color value #ff12bb120012 is reduced to #ffbb00 for 24-bit > output." Although perhaps the example should be something like #ff12bb830012 -> #ffbc00 > There was a suggestion a while ago to expand the CSS color triplet > notation to include alpha channel in the color spec, as in > > rgba(255, 127, 0, 63) > > This seems like a great idea. Why wait for CSS2? It does seem like a great idea, and could work well with background images, negative margins, etc. The rgba notation is good. As to whether it makes it into CSS1 or a later spec, that is not my call. I suspect the whole spec would need a good going over to see what happens if things can now be semi-opaque. > In this case it should be possible to mix value types in a triplet or > quadlet(?) so that the above could be: > > rgba(255, 127, 0, 25%) Why? It isn't clear why being able to say rgba (36, #bc, 0.7, 112%) is very valuable. -- Chris Lilley, W3C [ http://www.w3.org/ ] Graphics and Fonts Guy The World Wide Web Consortium http://www.w3.org/people/chris/ INRIA, Projet W3C chris@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 +33 93 65 79 87 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 1996 16:30:46 UTC