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

Re: [css3-color] #rrggbbaa annotation

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 10:03:49 -0700
Cc: Alberto Lepe <dev@alepe.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C42E879F-0A64-44C4-B84C-768B13C6B562@gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>

On Apr 6, 2010, at 8:14 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> Guys, there's no need to argue.  

Well, aside from needing to respond to comments that could potentially keeping a Last Call from advancing to Proposed Recommendation, right?

> We know that #rgba will be easy to
> spec and implement, as it's a trivial parsing change.  We also know
> that some authors (me included) have grown to greatly prefer the hex
> notation, and find it the most intuitive.
> The only thing we don't know is if it's worth pulling Colors 3 out of
> Last Call to add a new feature, and letting it run through LC again
> afterwards.  I would personally rather let it bake as-is so we can put
> it to rest, and slab #rgba into Colors 4.  

Me too. Adding a new feature would definitely slow down the advancing of CSS3 Color without really changing anything that is already there. Whereas a fast-tracked CSS4 color with just this in it would probably not arrive any later than if it was added to CSS3. At least that is my impression. Of course, there is always the possibility that people will want to add more to CSS4 color too (how about ink modes?). Oh, and, well, there is gamma correction too for CSS4 Color, right?

Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 17:04:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:33 UTC