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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 15:34:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAV2jdt0gjxLOV5JuNN-ThptGtm910VcZQhMSdFSBiM7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru> wrote:
> Recently, when I (once again) was typing redundant #ccc, #666, #999, etc., I've arrived at the same idea: it would be nice to be able to use #c, #6, #9 shortcuts.
>
> Replacing #acacac with #ac looks quite nice and reasonable too. There is nothing wrong with #ac compared with #c as well as with existing #ccc.
>
> Such shortcuts are not more consusing than existing #ccc, #666, #999, etc.
>
> As for similar additions to rgba (that has been mentioned in the thread), I personally almost don't care about this since I consider rgba paradigm itself just wrong and almost useless as for CSS:
>
> instead of rgba(), it would be _much_ more useful to have background-opacity property that would control opacity of _entire_ background including background color _and_ image together. Those interested may see proposal in sibling thread I've started a moment ago:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Sep/0033.html

There have been multiple threads talking about 1- or 2-digit hex
shorthands.  One of them was even posted to today or yesterday.  I
suggest a search of the archives (at lists.w3.org - use Google with
that url) to catch up on the current discussion and/or find the
previous thread to reply on.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 5 September 2011 22:34:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:44 GMT