W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2005

Re: [CSS3 Color] Percentages in Alpha Value etc.

From: Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:25:48 +0300
Message-ID: <42D7B95C.7060009@peda.net>
To: www-style@w3.org

Christoph Päper wrote:
> Matthew Raymond:
>>Or perhaps we could do something to make it a bit 
>>more clear like "##FFFFFFFF" or "#FFFFFF-FF".
> 
> No, inconsistent. I assume the WG did not include this, because of 
> typos: #FFF and #FFFFFF are easily dinstinguished and two, four, five or 
> seven digits are always typos that yield no color, but with #FFFF (and 
> #FFFFFFFF) possible, the short forms (three or four digits) could be 
> typos of each other. Five and seven digits staid always being typos, though.

Aaarrghh!

If this is really the reason to omit colors #1234 and #12345678 then 
something has gone really wrong with the WG. Why should the spec 
provide such "safety" feature for the author?? Also, they don't 
require me to write "line-height: 1...2;" to mean "line-height: 
1.2", just to make sure that I didn't *really* mean "line-height: 
12". Why should color be any different?

I consider the fact that #1234 and #12345678 are missing from the 
spec as a clear error that should be fixed.

And no, the fact that NN4.x does interpret #1234 as some random 
color instead of discarding it, doesn't change my mind.

-- 
Mikko
Received on Friday, 15 July 2005 13:26:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:39 GMT