W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2011

Re: [css] Proposal: making Shorthand Hex Colors even shorter (16 grayscale shades)

From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 09:44:51 +1000
Message-ID: <4E388BF3.5020101@css-class.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Markus Bruch <macinfo@arcor.de>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 3/08/2011 6:22 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Brian Manthos<brianman@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>> Tab:
>>> I am strongly opposed to a 2-[hexa]digit variant, because it has
>>> a different expansion rule than the 3-digit hex that already
>>> exists.
>> Doesn't the 1-hexadigit representation have the same concern
>> (different expansion rule than 3-digit hex)?
> Not really.  The 3-digit hex works by duplicating each digit
> in-place. The 1-digit hex would sextuple the single digit in-place.
> (One could also argue that 1-digit hex uses the same expansion rule
> as 2-digit hex, and one would be right.  It's a degenerate case.)
> 2-digit hex, if it used the same expansion rule, would expand #12
> into #111222 (which is obviously useless).
> ~TJ

I totally agree with Tab here regarding a 2-hexadigit variant. The 
expansion rule is different and could be confusing to authors if any 
method was spec'd. I'm also against having a 4-hexadigit as a shortcut 
for 8-hexadigit (last two digits for alpha).

Alan Gresley
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 23:45:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:48 UTC