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

Re: [css3-color] #rrggbbaa annotation

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 07:44:53 -0700
Message-ID: <w2ydd0fbad1004070744h7d1c2a14yc6ce5008f8b1292d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eli Morris-Heft <eli.morris.heft@gmail.com>
Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Eli Morris-Heft
<eli.morris.heft@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not to start down the dark path, but might we consider a CSS 3.1? I know
> this would be yet another a good intention with which to pave that road, but
> it does seem like #rrggbbaa doesn't warrant an entire level to itself. Also,
> if it isn't obvious: I am in support of the idea of #rrggbbaa if only for
> the sake of completeness (though I know I'd use it), although I wouldn't
> want to do another Last Call simply because of it.

No need to futz about with version numbers like that.  There is no
"CSS 3", just a bunch of CSS modules which all happen to be in Level 3
(because we started with that when we moved from a single spec to
multiple modules).  There's nothing wrong with calling the next
version of a module Level 4.

There's also a good chance that Level 4 won't be *just* #rgba.  There
are other color-related issues that sorta need resolving, we just
don't want to hold up the existing draft for them.

(Plus, by existing precedent, the .1 designation is just for when we
accumulate enough errata for a document that it becomes difficult to
tell just *what* has been errata'd, and so we fold the errata into the
main document.  We don't do errata until a document is 'frozen',
though (before then, we just modify the draft), and we can't generally
add features in errata.)

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010 14:45:46 GMT

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