- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 15:34:08 -0700
- 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 UTC