- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:25:26 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- cc: Tantek Celik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>>> Regarding the X11 color keywords, I have to ask why
>>> these are becoming part of the spec.?
>>
>> In short, to codify common practice.
>
> Common practise by whom?
Have you never seen users say
p { color: orange; }
...?
The color 'orange' is supported by UAs because they support the X11
colours and 'orange' is one of those.
> Adding those color names means:
>
> * Incompatibility with CSS Level 2
In practice these colours have been supported anyway, so this point is
moot unless you are aware of a fully CSS2 compliant browser (or even a
fully CSS1 compliant browser).
> * Break with the WCAG 1.0 CSS Techs, which deprecates the use of color
> names in favour of RGB values
Since color names are *exactly equivalent* to RGB values (each name is
given an exact RGB equivalent, e.g. 'red' is the same as 'rgb(255,0,0)'),
I am not sure I understand the reasoning behind this technique.
> * Bloating the module
A fair comment.
> I'd like to see those colors removed from the module; I don't see that
> using them is 'common practise' and this won't be a good argument to
> include them.
I do not disagree.
We want to support 'color:orange', though, because authors are already
using it, and UAs are already implementing it. What subset of colours
would you suggest we use instead?
--
Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL
Netscape, Standards Compliance QA /. `- ' ( `--'
+1 650 937 6593 `- , ) - > ) \
irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _________________________ (.' \) (.' -' __________
Received on Monday, 12 March 2001 17:24:08 UTC