W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2002

RE: X11 Colors (was Last call comments on CSS3 module: color)

From: Jelks Cabaniss <jelks@jelks.nu>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 14:11:03 -0400
To: <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002101c20cbc$5afa1900$6601a8c0@blackie>

Tantek Celik wrote:

> > What is there to really gain by deprecation before an alternate and 
> > "better" naming scheme has been thoroughly designed and debated?
 
> 1. Discourage authors from using the X11 named colors.

Why?

If the WG deprecates the X11 color names, at what point will IE Mac
ignore them (not to mention IE Win, Opera, and Mozilla)?  If common UAs
render them for the next ten years, what's the point of deprecation?
It's just a name lookup table.  Even if/when there is a better name
lookup table, does deprecating the X11 color names really serve any
purpose?  

(And even if they are eventually deprecated, should that happen *now*?)

On a related note, the X11 color names have been compared to <FONT> and
company -- a stretch of an inflamed imagination.  Tag soup was (and
remains) the prime monkey wrench in Markup on the Web; a lookup table of
goofy color names in CSS doesn't even qualify for remotely equivalent
infamy.  Offensive to self-respecting geek purity -- maybe; harmful --
no.

> > I question whether we want the word "deprecation" to be taken as 
> > lightly as a peachpuff.
> 
> I certainly don't think people on this list are taking this 
> lightly - on the contrary there are numerous strong feelings 
> and opinions on this matter.

I wasn't insinuating that you or anyone else in the WG was taking this
lightly!  I was merely asking whether *deprecating* an inconsequential
lookup table really made sense, or if the real (and unintended) effect
is to turn "deprecated" into, well, an ignored word.  


/Jelks
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2002 14:11:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:14 GMT