Re: HTML 3.2 PR color value syntax (fwd)

S.N.Brodie@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:15:47 +0000 (GMT)


From: S.N.Brodie@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Message-Id: <6639.9611141015@strachey.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: HTML 3.2 PR color value syntax (fwd)
To: msftrncs@htcnet.com (Carl Morris)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:15:47 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <199611140550.XAA22743@inet.htcnet.com> from "Carl Morris" at Nov 13, 96 11:49:28 pm

Carl Morris wrote:
> 
> | There are already clashes with some early browser releases over the
> | color names.  As a designer I avoid names completely and use the hex
> | equivalents.  I think it would be good for any editors to do the same
> -
> | even if they present it to the user as 'Bright Red' save the HTML as
> | "#FF0000".
> 
> I don't suggest this.  If you want FF0000 call it RED...  Right now,
> more browsers are likely to convert "olive" more closely to the correct
> color than they are "808000"...

Most browsers are likely not to understand "olive".  Those that do
understand colour names are more likely to render olive as 808000 as
that's the Windows VGA default palette colour which is defined in the
3.2 DTD - that's how I've coded mine.  UNIX/X clients have more of a
problem since olive is already a predefined colour - which one takes
precedence?

> but if 206080 is what you want because
> you image uses it, what not, then thats the way its gotta go.  I don't
> like the idea of 1000s of color names, but a few is good, and there use
> should be just as good.  

The names are rubbish though - no guide at all to the colour it should
be.  Nobody was able to tell me what colour teal was, for example.  I
eventually found out after a kind soul tried it out on a Windows
machine.  But that's another argument.

This is partially the reason why I suggested a <colour> tag to
introduce a temporary binding and somebody else preferred <!entity>
tag.  Whilst this issue is handled properly in stylesheets and that is
the correct place for it, IMHO, it might be useful to have such a tag
anyway.  Somebody else commented that this is "tag"itis.  I suspect
that one of the major difference between <colour> or the new <!entity>
suggestion being accepted and <font> is that my browser doesn't have
"70%+ of the market".  :-(


-- 
Stewart Brodie, Electronics & Computer Science, Southampton University.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~snb94r/      http://delenn.ecs.soton.ac.uk/