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

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

From: Jon Ferraiolo <Jon.Ferraiolo@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 10:42:40 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <>
To: DPawson@rnib.org.uk, steven.pemberton@cwi.nl, www-style@w3.org
Cc: www-svg@w3.org

Speaking as one of the SVG guys, it would be OK with me to make changes in 
the area of color keywords. The X11 color keywords are indeed much less 
useful than they could be. If changes are made, however, here are some 
things I'd like to see:

1) Any new color keywords which are defined must have different names than 
any of the color keywords in the SVG 1.0 spec. This will allow implementers 
such as Adobe to just add new keywords to an existing table and will allow 
existing web content to still work.

2) All existing color keywords in the SVG spec would continue to be 
documented forever, perhaps as "deprecated" and perhaps only required 
within full implementations of SVG, but again we need to ensure that 
existing web content will still work into the future.

It would also be OK with me if we deprecated all color keywords from all 
specs (I'm very flexible).

This one topic is something for which everyone will have an opinion and 
might set records in terms of number of emails sent and number of people 
participating in the thread, all about something that really isn't 
advancing technology very much. The internationalization folks might chime 
in, for example, calling for keyword names for languages other than English.

So, it might be good to look at strategies that are most likely bring 
discussion to a close as quickly as possible, such as "just accept what SVG 
1.0 did" or "deprecate all color keywords everywhere". Defining new color 
keywords seems likely to produce the longest possible discussion.


At 07:53 AM 5/30/2002 +0100, DPawson@rnib.org.uk wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steven Pemberton [mailto:steven.pemberton@cwi.nl]
> > Sent: 29 May 2002 16:15
> > To: Tantek Çelik; fantasai; www-style@w3.org
> > Cc: www-svg@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: X11 Colors (was Last call comments on CSS3 module: color)
> > > Since this issue affects SVG, I think the consensus must
> > include www-svg
> > as
> > > well, either way, hence I expanded the discussion to that forum.
> >
> > Possibly. They should at least be aware of the objections to
> > the bad design
> > of the X11 color set (newcomers, see the thread starting
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2002May/0122.html)
> > Personally I didn't care enough about SVG to fight. I care
> > enough about CSS
> > that I don't want to see it spoiled.
>Thanks for the bg Steven.
>On that logic, I would support the removal or deprecation of
>X11-colors in both CSS and SVG. Both because I do care about SVG
>*and* I would like to see consistency across W3C recs.
>I'm curious what other areas do for colour, where  its important,
>e.g. the dtp areas. Any standardisation there that could be referenced?
>Regards DaveP
>****** snip here *****
>NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is
>confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the
>intended recipient you are hereby notified that you must not use,
>disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email's content. If
>you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
>immediately and then delete the email and any attachments from your
>RNIB has made strenuous efforts to ensure that emails and any
>attachments generated by its staff are free from viruses. However, it
>cannot accept any responsibility for any viruses which are
>transmitted. We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.
>Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email
>and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily
>represent those of RNIB.
>RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227
>Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk
>14th June 2002 is RNIB Look Loud Day - visit http://www.lookloud.org.uk to
>find out all about it.
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 12:08:06 UTC

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