W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 1998

Re: color in CSS

From: Greg Marr <gregm@alum.wpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 13:48:35 -0500
Message-Id: <4.1.19981201134345.00e5e030@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
At 12:24 PM 12/1/98 , MWhisman@aol.com wrote:
>IMHO, some of the Netscape color name-value pairs are a bit odd -- notably
>Brown (it's more a red) and NavajoWhite (odd name and value) -- but hey,
>they're there to be used! Unfortunate that the Netscape colors are not
>supported by all browsers, since the colors are not W3C-official. Netscape
>isn't alone in that. Blue=#0000FF and Navy=#000080 are actually more purple or
>violet in print, and calling it "Blue" is standard industry-wide for on-screen
>and in-print.

I hate to disappoint you, but these aren't Netscape colors.  These are the X
Window System standard color names (usually found in /usr/lib/X11/rgb.txt).

>To me, standard color names should be short and fairly obvious. That is, most
>people who see them would agree that is the color. Unlike the long,
>"LightGoldenrodYellow" ;-). My apologies to the Netscape folks. I don't intend
>to pick on them: they are helping, not hindering, the web.

I tend to disagree with your last statement, but that is another argument.  You
don't have to apologize to Netscape for any of your comments, since they didn't
come up with the colors or names, they just adopted the standard names on the
platform where their browser originated.

--
Greg Marr
gregm@alum.wpi.edu
"We thought you were dead." 
"I was, but I'm better now." - Sheridan, "The Summoning"
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 1998 13:55:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:56 GMT