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

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

From: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 16:40:54 -0400
Message-ID: <3CF3EB56.F0A2E3EB@escape.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
CC: www-svg@w3.org
Tantek Çelik wrote:
> 
> On 5/27/02 3:26 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai@escape.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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 can understand this reasoning. However, I don't believe that consistency
is sufficient reason to perpetuate a mistake. Of course, if you don't
consider, as I do, the addition of X11 names to the color property to be a
mistake, this argument naturally would not apply.

> > 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.

I consider those reasons why it *may* become part of CSS3:color, not
reasons that it *must* become part of CSS3:color. I see in your
argument nothing that requires the incorporation of X11 names into
this particular proposed specification.

> > 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.

And NS4 and Mozilla.

> > 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.
> background.

I did not include that reference to contrast between bgcolor and background
but to demonstrate the _precedent_ of a W3C WG taking an already implemented
language feature and a) standardizing and deprecating it (bgcolor)
                     b) declining to standardize it (background)

> 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.

A good idea, IMO, regardless of the situation here.

~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2002 16:37:15 GMT

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