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

Re: CSS3 module: Color

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:28:11 +0100
Message-ID: <168732328.20030227182811@w3.org>
To: "Jonathan Stanley" <jon@asciigrackle.eclipse.co.uk>
CC: www-style@w3.org

On Thursday, February 27, 2003, 1:51:27 PM, Jonathan wrote:

JS> Right I see, far greater prescision than I think anyone would
JS> need, however, I assumed the values were indeed 0.0 to 1.0, with 1
JS> decimal place accuracy, as that's what secion 3.2 implied with
JS> regards to opacity:

JS> Computed value: The same as the specified value after clipping the
JS> <alphavalue> to the range [0.0,1.0].

No, that merely gives the numerical range. Numbers cannot be less than
zero or more than one.

JS> ---
JS> If it is, say to 6 decimal places,

It is not to any particular number of decimal places.

>> I agree that this aspect should be more clearly specified. It seems
>> obvious that hue is a wraparound value but for consistency of
>> implementation, it should be explicitly stated.

JS> Thanks :)

JS> It working correctly as a wraparound value would be good for
JS> scripting (no need to check "out of bound" values in runtime) and
JS> better for accessibilty (ie, how to clip value, render as
JS> black/white/transparent/etc)

I tend to agree that wraparound is better.


>> There is an issue with hyphens in names, to do with scripting. In
>> response to a request from the DOm working group, SVG WG changed
>> all the names that it had to camelCase, except for existing CSS
>> names that we did not control.

JS> Right I see, would this also mean existing CSS1/CSS2 hyphenated
JS> names become depreciated in this/future versions of the CSS
JS> specification?

Well, the SVG WG could not make that decision. The CSS WG could, if it
chose.

-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 12:28:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:20 GMT