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

Re: Last call comments on CSS3 module: color

From: Moschini, Chris <cmoschini@xchange.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 17:00:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <F1A28355A077D411BD4200B0D049930C0387950F@bosmail2.xchange.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
I'm sorry for entering this discussion so late.

Firstly, I agree with the general sentiment that it is unfortunate such an
unclear set of color definitions become prevalent in common use.

So, should they be standardized so that browsers are consistent, or not to
penalize their use?

Clearly, penalization is ineffective. So standardization is the only
available option... . But is there perhaps a way in which these colors could
be standardized that encourages best use?

These colors provide quite the area of grey. One can easily say that seeing
color: red; is more meaningful than color: #f00; - and yet, one can also
easily say that seeing color: papayawhip; is less meaningful than color:
#ffefd5, rgb( 255, 239, 213 ), or verylightyellow. So where is the line
drawn?

I think if we're to assume we must make a recommendation in this area of
grey (the clear 16 colors have been covered) then we must write the
recommendation appropriately. We could for example recommend several color
naming patterns. The conjuncts verylightyellow and paleyellow could be just
as valid as papayawhip, and yet all refer to the same color. Yes, such a
duality presents boggling opportunity for inconsistency, but taking this
area of grey guarantees you venture into cultural and professional
boundaries (if I sell tiles I may identify with colors like deepskyblue,
while as a painter I may identify with lightcyanblue). The only way to
equitably define this area is to be as open as possible without becoming
ridiculous.

-Chris Moschini - UI Development, Xchange
Received on Friday, 24 May 2002 05:01:07 GMT

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