W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2007

Re: [CSS21] valid values with "rgb()"

From: Del Merritt <del@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:04:39 -0500
Message-ID: <45E43A77.2060600@alum.mit.edu>
To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
Cc: www-style Mailing List <www-style@w3.org>

Bert Bos wrote:
> Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>
>> Del Merritt wrote:
>>> Instead, the subsequent examples show all-integer or all-percentage 
>>> values.  That Lie&Bos would get this "wrong" suggests an issue with 
>>> the spec.  (Or was there a spec change subsequent to the book's 
>>> publication?
>>
>> CSS1 has this to say on the matter:
>>
>>   The format of an RGB value in the functional notation is 'rgb('
>>   followed by a comma-separated list of three numerical values
>>   (either three integer values in the range of 0-255, or three
>>   percentage values in the range of 0.0% to 100.0%) followed
>>   by ')'. Whitespace characters are allowed around the numerical values.
>>
>> CSS2 and CSS2.1 have the wording you cited (which differs only in its 
>> handling of values outside the 0-255 and 0%-100% range).  So looks 
>> like the spec has said what it says all along.  Not sure what the 
>> deal with howcome and Bert's book is.  ;)
>
> Well, Del, it seems you found a bug in our book :-) That merits a 
> mention on the errata page http://www.w3.org/Style/LieBos3e/
>
> I don't know why we wrote rgb(100%,0,0) instead of rgb(100%,0%,0%). 
> Probably just a mistake. It seems there is only one occurrence.

OK - so do you think I'll also get a mention in the Opera errata, since 
it appears 9.0 (linux, at least) allows the unitless "0"?   Guess that's 
up to Mr. Lie.  8-)

-Del, who played in the "Arch. Mac." in the days before M.L.
Received on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 14:05:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:49 GMT