W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2001

Re: New Working Draft published: CSS3 module: Color

From: firespring <firespring@nfx.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 08:30:14 -0500
Message-ID: <3AA8DAE6.465451BA@nfx.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Dylan Schiemann wrote:
> 
> 
> I seem to remember a proposal a while ago to use
> things like darker and lighter which didn't go over
> very well.  Isn't a larger list of named colors really
> the same thing, just less consistent?
> 
> -Dylan Schiemann
> 
>

From this one lone author's point of view, yes. But since CSS is becoming
bloatware anyway, apparently more embedded inconsistency makes no difference
to the working group. Note: I don't care to debate my view, and I don't have
the documentation (or the time) to back it up. I'm just a lone author and 
list-lurker out here in the real world (i.e., the world that has been 
USING CSS for real development for real customers despite the bloat, despite 
the inconsistent UA implementations, and despite the dozens, if not hundreds,
of minor niggling problems I've encountered (but have been too busy making a 
living to document and debate with this group).

After reading some of the recent discussions however, I just couldn't resist
putting in my two cents worth. It has long been my hope that the working
group (and UA implementors) would learn to follow an Open Source guideline, 
i.e., "release early - release often", but instead it seems that the group
has gone WAY beyond trying to separate style from content and is instead
trying to develop a new UA-based graphics language. Sad.

Oh, and BTW, I LIKED the lighter-darker scheme that was proposed a while
back. I believe it COULD have worked if a little more effort had been put
into developing the concept. It is CERTAINLY better than the X-scheme. Too 
bad.

Rick Johnson
firespring@nfx.net
Received on Friday, 9 March 2001 08:17:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:08 GMT