W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 1997

RE: Color Keywords (was RE: Cascading Style Sheets)

From: Chris Wilson (PSD) <cwilso@MICROSOFT.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:18:12 -0800
Message-ID: <C35556591D34D111BB5600805F1961B908DE55@red-msg-47.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'Susan Lesch'" <lesch@macvirus.com>, www-style@w3.org
Those are the 139 colors I'm referring to.  There was some disagreement over
embedding the RGB values for the 16 colors in the CSS spec, if I recall - I
think there was some disparity between operating systems and RGB values to
get the same colors (obviously, there are different gamma values).  This was
probably resolved when the sRGB schema was adopted.

	-Chris
Chris Wilson
cwilso@microsoft.com
***

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Susan Lesch [SMTP:lesch@macvirus.com]
> Sent:	Wednesday, December 03, 1997 8:21 PM
> To:	www-style@w3.org; Chris Wilson (PSD)
> Subject:	Color Keywords (was RE: Cascading Style Sheets)
> 
> Chris Wilson wrote:
> 
> > Hmm, yes - well, I also argued that the difference between
> > support for the 16 named colors in the CSS specification and
> > the 139 colors that are "current practice" (as supported by
> > Netscape and Microsoft for a couple of years now)
> 
> Does anyone happen to know if these [1] are those 139 colors?
> From Mac OS 8, 8-bit, four of the first eight colors are
> identical.
> 
> > was under 1k of bits (123 additional colors * (4bytes hash of
> > name + 3 bytes RGB value + 1 byte because most systems align on
> > word boundaries) = 984 bytes), and lost as well.
> 
> Why do CSS1 and CSS2 spell out names, and then not define RGB
> values [2] for the 16 color keywords? Sorry to repeat anything.
> 
> Guesses. (1) To give implementors a chance to render those colors
> in something other than their Windows VGA and HTML 3.2 values?
> (2) Do the RGB values, deprecated and enumerated in the HTML 4.0
> PR, give people the idea that if the CSS keywords do have
> values, then they are: 000, fff, f00, f0f, 0f0, ff0, 00f, 0ff, and
> C0C0C0, 808080, 800000, 800080, 008000, 808000, 000080, 008080?
> 
> A style author might intend, "Any 'red' is fine, thank you!" and
> be grateful for a window of opportunity through which his or her
> readers might see red. The Half-ripe Tomato red that author sees
> could be mistaken for Late Cherry on a receiving setup, influencing
> that user's color choice in a different direction, I'd think.
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/msg06510.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-CSS2/syndata.html#h-4.2.5
> 
> --
> Susan Lesch
> Mac Virus
> http://www.macvirus.com/
> 
Received on Thursday, 4 December 1997 12:18:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:53 GMT