W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2010

Re: [css3-color] #rrggbbaa annotation

From: Patrick Garies <pgaries@fastmail.us>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 01:53:34 -0500
Message-ID: <4BBADA6E.8040404@fastmail.us>
To: Alberto Lepe <dev@alepe.com>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 2010-04-05 11:42 PM, Alberto Lepe wrote:
> I agree with Tab Atkins. If its too complicated to be added in CSS3
> specifications, I think it should be added in CSS4. The only thing
> that worries me is that CSS4 looks very far away in time to be
> released.

To be clear, while I don't care for the feature, I don't care about it
enough to oppose it being added to CSS Color.

However, I think that it's responsible to bring to people's attention
inaccurate or incomplete statements that, for example, tout a feature, 
hence the criticisms. That includes apparent exaggerations given your 
current position:

"We can't wait until CSS4 for this feature [, ... that] will make
the #RRGGBBAA recommendation out of time and useless in CSS4."

> But in the other hand, as this feature is quite simple in
> implementation and definition, maybe browsers won't delay so much in
> adding it, don't you think?

Hope that you can get Microsoft to implement this in Internet
Explorer 9, otherwise it will probably be three to four years before you 
can use this technique without a workaround for that browser and that's 
assuming that you would be willing to accept fallback in previous 
versions. Otherwise, you'd *still* need a workaround for the previous 
versions.

That's just the slowest and most major player though. You need *all* 
browsers and browser versions that you want this new technique to work 
in to support it before it really becomes useful.

I have a feeling that the workarounds would require more effort than you 
save. Until that level of support is reached, it'd probably be easier 
just to write a Web page with a script that automatically does the color 
format conversions for you (or find an existing one).

> In the case of css-color module, I think it should be added under
> "4.2.2 RGBA color values" in a similar way as it is introduced in
> the "4.2.1 RGB color values" section.

It'd probably make more sense to add it straight to section 4.2.2 where 
it says "Unlike RGB values, there is no hexadecimal notation for an RGBA 
value." The section could be split in half with the halves labeled 
4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2.

> Introducing #RRGGBBAA should not break anything in its
> implementation as it will still valid for older versions: "Note. If
> RGBA values are not supported by a user agent, they should be treated
> like unrecognized values per the CSS forward compatibility parsing
> rules. RGBA values must not be treated as simply an RGB value with
> the opacity ignored. "

Frankly, this is so obvious that's it's not necessary to say.
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 06:54:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:26 GMT