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

Re: [css4-color] #RGBA

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 10:52:09 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=WP9jcAPqUmVSRoACYJOPLAGh-mudYHRFrfzV7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Patrick Garies <pgaries@fastmail.us>
Cc: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Christoph P├Ąper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Patrick Garies <pgaries@fastmail.us> wrote:
> On 2010-09-04 4:16 PM, Brian Manthos wrote:
>>
>> While you're on the subject...
>>
>> Does HSL/HSLA get a short syntax as well?
>
> I don't know how those are supposed to be shortened unless you're going to
> assume that the saturation and lightness are always 50% in the shorthand or
> something (i.e., allowing variable hues, but locking saturation and
> lightness: |hsl(<hue>)| and |hsla(<hue>, <alpha>)|).
>
> RGB/RGBA could be shortened to |rgb(<RGB>)| and |rgba(<RGB>, <alpha>)|
> though. That would certainly make defining relative shades of gray easier
> (though isn't useful if you want a specific hue).

He meant something akin to the #rgb syntax for colors, which is the
short form that complements the rgb(r,g,b) long form.

As I said, though, HSL colors do not have any widely-used short form
(I don't know of any, so if any exist they're probably not widely
used).  Further, the uneven structure of the HSL colors (that is, the
fact that the first argument is of a different form from the latter
two) means that I don't see any obvious way to define such a form
anyway, even if I wanted to.

So no, there won't be any "short form" for HSL colors.  They will
continue to use the functional form only.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 6 September 2010 17:53:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:31 GMT