W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2003

Re: CSS3: Color

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:05:42 +0100
Message-ID: <8677140015.20030217110542@w3.org>
To: www-style@w3.org, fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>

On Monday, February 17, 2003, 10:14:07 AM, fantasai wrote:


f> Chris Lilley wrote:
>> On Monday, February 17, 2003, 3:12:56 AM, fantasai wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> f> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2002Jun/0026.html
>> f> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2002Sep/0061.html
>> f> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-css3-color-20030214
>> f> ???
>> 
>> f> Does the last call record accept implied comments?
>> 
>> Could you be a little less terse? I am not sure what you are asking.

f> None of the suggested changes to the color names made it in. How so?

f> Specifically, there seemed to be a consensus on www-style that X11
f> colors should be included *and* deprecated; this is not reflected
f> in the draft.

Perhaps because www-style is not the only place from which last call
input could come.

Some designers, who know that these names have been reliably and
interoperably implemented for years, would like to use them and would
like to not have to strip them out just to get W3C compliance.

The SVG WG was also unhappy at having something from their spec
deprecated for no very good reason, and one of the stated aims of this
module is to get the HTML (CSS) and SVG(CSS) world into closer
harmony. It would be unfortunate if SVG was not able to use this
module and had to make up its own one.

Of course, individual profiles of CSS may choose to omit these names
as, indeed, the CSS1 and CSS2 profiles have done.

f> The first post here is representative. The second one
f> discusses the shortcomings of user preference color keywords, also
f> noting objections to the system color keywords in the last Last Call
f> Working Draft. Nothing in these sections changed, either. Why?


As to the user preference keywords, there were objections but not
really a concrete and workable alternative proposal unless I missed it,
in which case a pointer would be appreciated.


-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Monday, 17 February 2003 05:05:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:19 GMT