W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2008

Re: SVG Color Keywords Applicability

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 15:14:41 -0700
To: Peter Moulder <Peter.Moulder@infotech.monash.edu.au>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20080513221441.GC16791@pickering.dbaron.org>

On Tuesday 2008-05-13 15:15 +1000, Peter Moulder wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 05:04:09PM -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> > This has been recorded as
> > http://csswg.inkedblade.net/spec/css3-color#issue-19 and has been
> > addressed in the editor's draft at
> > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-color/#svg-color by adding the
> > sentence:
> >   # This specification extends their definition beyond SVG.
> Can sections 4.1 and 4.3 be merged, then?  Suggested title ‘Color
> keywords’.  We could still start by listing the 16 HTML colours (or 17
> CSS 2.1 colours, = HTML + orange) given that they include the most basic
> colours.
> Having a single section makes it clearer that there's no distinction in
> their treatment as far as css3-color is concerned.

Reorganizing the specification at this level of maturity has a bit
of cost (breaking links people have, requiring reorganization of the
test suite, etc.).  It also makes it a lot harder to write the
profiles section I reference below.  Do you really think that's
worth it?

(I'd have agreed if you made this comment during last call.)

> If a motivation for having separate lists is to give information on
> backwards compatibility, then I'd have thought it more valuable to
> identify the colour specifications supported by CSS 2.1
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#color-units)
> than those supported by HTML attributes.

http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-color/#profiles does this already, I


L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2008 22:15:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:06 GMT