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

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

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 16:57:16 -0700
To: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>, www-style@w3.org
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-id: <B91815EB.C920%tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
On 5/27/02 3:26 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai@escape.com> wrote:

> Daniel Glazman wrote:
>> Conclusions : right, the X11 color set should not be a standard 'de
>> jure'... ooops, too bad, that's already a standard 'de facto'. We have
>> to live with it, I'm afraid.
> Tantek Çelik wrote:
>> Yes, the X11 color set has already been accepted through the last call
>> process TWICE already (SVG 1.0, SVG 1.1) and for that reason alone they
>> will be included in CSS3 color - indeed, CSS implementations of X11 color
>> predate SVG implementations by quite some time.
> SVG extends parts of CSS, and not all of these extensions have been
> transferred back into cannonical CSS.

In general the extensions consist of new properties, or new values to
existing properties.

In the latter case, as previously discussed by the various groups involved
with styling, it is useful to keep properties consistent between specs.
Thus keeping the set of values for particular value consistent has a higher
level of importance (and significance) than trying to squeeze every property
into every spec.

> The X11 color set can remain
> an SVG CSS extension;

Unfortunately, that doesn't make any sense, since there is nothing special
"SVG"-like about the X11 color set.

> I don't see any reason why it must become part
> of CSS3:color.

How about the fact that it is already in a REC as noted and interoperably
implemented cross-browser and cross-platform in numerous implementations for
many years?  Certainly much more than can be said about most other
technologies in W3C proposals.

> As for a lot of browsers having implemented it already, the same can
> be said of <td background="image.gif">

I believe you are mistaken.  "td background" was only in IE.

> Note that while 'bgcolor' was
> standardized (and deprecated) by HTML 4, 'background' did not make it
> into the specification.

An omission by accident or oversight or simply lack of momentum - don't
expect to find any particular indepth reasoning regarding bgcolor vs.

> As Steven Pemberton has pointed out, the process of deprecation does
> exist to gradually get rid of language features no longer desired. If
> codifying X11 colors into CSS3 is necessary, then do so and deprecate
> them,

A reasonable proposal - but I will not deprecate them in CSS3 unless the SVG
working group also deprecates in SVG 1.1.

In fact, everyone who feels strongly against the X11 colors should forward
their posts to www-svg@w3.org (cc'd), and request that SVG 1.1 deprecate (or
remove - depending on your opinion) them as well.

> as HTML 4 did with many HTML features. What compelling argument
> prevents this route?

Consistency between specs.  Were SVG 1.1 to deprecate the X11 colors, then
it would make perfect sense to deprecate them in CSS3 Color.

> If you think X11 name support is important for the future, then I
> recommend you take Kynn's suggestion and separate it out of raw color
> values with functional notation. This leaves the syntax open to better
> naming schemes CSS may want to adopt in the future.

Either the X11 colors should be advocated as is, or they should be
deprecated as is.  I don't think it makes any sense to go with introducing a
new syntax for something you want deprecated.

Received on Monday, 27 May 2002 19:52:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:02 UTC