- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:36:31 -0700
- To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Eduard Pascual <herenvardo@gmail.com>, Patrick Garies <w3c.www-style@patrick.garies.name>, "mollyh@opera.com" <mollyh@opera.com>, Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote: > I don't have the link (and didn't see it in the original mail), but I'm referring to the extension of adding the #rrggbbaa syntax (CSS4) *not* the extension of adding rgba (CSS3). > > If you add a "non-functional" syntax to RGB, and don't add it to HSL that suggests that HSL isn't worthy of spending the time to provide a tight non-functional syntax so that it has parity with RGB. > > So with the CSS4 change, RGB is now two steps ahead of HSL -- it has rgb(), rgba(), #rrggbb, and #rrggbbaa whereas HSL only has hsl() and hsla(). #rgba is nothing more than a completion of #rgb. It's not a separate new feature. It's just us maintaining feature parity between the syntaxes. As well, this isn't a race. There are three color syntaxes. The fact that two of them happen to refer to the same color-space is irrelevant. #rgb syntax doesn't exist because it's necessary, it exists because it's very familiar to coders and was already used in HTML. Inventing a brand new terse syntax for HSL has no such benefit. There is no reason to spend time and effort trying to invent a totally new terse syntax for HSL just to maintain the theoretical purity of all color-spaces having similar options. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 10 September 2010 19:37:25 UTC