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 14:08:47 +0100
Message-ID: <488125515.20030217140847@w3.org>
To: www-style@w3.org, fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>

On Monday, February 17, 2003, 1:37:45 PM, fantasai wrote:

f> Chris Lilley wrote:
>> Perhaps because www-style is not the only place from which last call
>> input could come.

f> Obviously.

I mentioned this because of your claim of consensus.

f> However, I don't have access to the other input, so I can't
f> know how/why decisions were made unless someone tells me. To me, this
f> has never been resolved. Hence the question.

>> 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.

f> Certainly. Deprecated code is still valid. It's just discouraged,

I didn't say they wanted it discouraged. I said they wanted to use it
and wanted interoperability, which they have already.

f> in
f> preparation for possible removal in future versions--like 'align' on
f> <div>, which was deprecated in HTML 4.01 and removed two whole versions
f> later in the XHTML 2.0 drafts.

Thanks, I am familiar with the general concept.

f> There were a bunch of interoperable implementations for that, too.

f> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/conform.html#h-4.1

f> If you want to deprecate X11 colors later, I guess that's fine, too.

No, no plans to do that.

f> In that case, you still shouldn't encourage their use.

>> 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.

f> Use the user stylesheet. That is, I believe, what it was created for.
f> See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2002Sep/0061.html
f> for examples.

Difficult to see how an author could do that.

f> Or do you really want to add HoverVisitedHyperlink, HoverActiveHyperlink,
f> InternalHyperlink, HoverInternalHyperlink, ActiveInternalHyperlink,
f> VisitedInternalLink, and their corresponding Text colors as implementors
f> request more control? Don't forget Focus! We ought to have FocusHyperlink
f> and FocusVisitedHyperlink to go with the mouse-specific Hover colors. And,
f> of course, FocusActiveHyperlink, FocusActiveVisitedHyperlink, etc.
f> (I could go on, if you want more examples. :)

No, I am familiar with combinatorial explosion as a concept, too.

f> Come, don't you want in-page links colored green instead of blue?

For years.

 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Monday, 17 February 2003 08:08:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:05 UTC