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: Thu, 30 May 2002 20:21:07 -0700
To: lordpixel@mac.com, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-id: <B91C3A32.DAC1%tantek@cs.stanford.edu>

On 5/30/02 7:54 PM, "Andy" <lordpixel@mac.com> wrote:

> Tantek Çelik wrote:
>> 
> 
>>> 
>>> Drop the X11 colours,
>> 
>> Would deprecating the X11 colors instead be acceptable?
> 
> 
> Sure. Its not like they're really going away anytime soon, regardless of
> what the spec says.
> And I can see the point of having a convenient list in the spec, so long
> as its not a recommendation.
> 
> I don't know exactly how you'd arrange it, but I'd even say "deprecate

Instead of the current format which lists "HTML4 colors" and "X11 colors" in
separate tables, I'll likely adopt a format much more like what SVG 1.0 did,
and have a "named colors" table (with perhaps a column indicating the
origin), and a "deprecated named colors" table so that it is clear to
authors which are recommended for use and which are deprecated.

> and explictly state they're optional on resource constrained devices".

The document already has a general caveat at the beginning:

From the "Status" section:

  'The Working Group doesn't expect that all implementations of CSS3 will
implement all properties or values. Instead, there will probably be a small
number of variants of CSS3, so-called "profiles". For example, it may be
that only the profile for 32-bit coloruser agents will include all of the
proposed color related properties and values.'

And the section on CSS2 System Colors states:

"Note that some profiles of CSS may not support System Colors at all."

We could add a similar statement for named colors, but I would rather avoid
adding more caveats which are essentially redundant with the statement in
the status section.

 
> However, I admit I don't know what the CSS practise is for small
> devices...

The CSS Mobile Profile [1] and CSS TV Profile [2] were developed to better
define just that for their respective types of more constrained devices.

> are they supposed to just pick and choose modules to support,

They should conform to a profile (such as Mobile or TV, or state their own),
which specifies exactly what from each module is supported.

> or is it acceptable for a module to define features small devices don't
> need to support?

Yes.  This was precisely one of the reasons behind the modularization of
CSS.  The modules describe all the features, and then profiles describe
which features are appropriate for what devices etc.

Thanks,

Tantek

[1]
 http://w3.org/TR/css-mobile

[2]
 http://w3.org/TR/css-tv
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 23:16:27 GMT

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