On 26/01/2012 8:16 PM, Christoph Päper wrote: > Tab Atkins Jr.: > >> Your third example - rgb(255, 0, 64, 127) - will always be invalid, >> though - CSS can't distinguish between<integer> and<number> in >> general, so the fact that alpha already takes a number in [0,1] means >> we can't also have it take an integer in [0,255], > > <alpha> can only and must be used – unless we allow<percentage> as an alternative – when the function name ends in an ‘a’, otherwise the transparency value is given as either<percentage> (always for HSL) or<integer>, iff red, green and blue are also provided as integers in the range [0,255]. > We should have > > + rgb(<integer>,<integer>,<integer>,<integer>) ! > + rgb(<percentage>,<percentage>,<percentage>,<percentage>) > + hsl(<angle>,<percentage>,<percentage>,<percentage>) This break backwards compatibility so they should be invalid. > + gray(<percentage>) > + gray(<percentage>,<percentage>) > + gray(<percentage>,<alpha>) There needs to be another way for grayscale since this don't seem right. graya(<value>,<value>) > + #RGBA > + #RRGGBBAA It does remind me of these threads last year (somehow got split into two). 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Aug/thread.html#msg37 2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Aug/thread.html#msg40 -- Alan Gresley http://css-3d.org/ http://css-class.com/Received on Friday, 27 January 2012 12:24:02 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:49 GMT