- From: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 23:16:52 +0300
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, Šime Vidas <sime.vidas@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
How about keywords? e.g. alpha(red, 50% smaller) or alpha(red, reduce by 50%) or alpha(red, 50% less) you get the idea PS: Why use two word function names? alpha() is only a bit less understandable (if at all) than adjust-alpha() or set-alpha() and much more concise. Lea Verou W3C developer relations http://w3.org/people/all#lea ✿ http://lea.verou.me ✿ @leaverou On May 9, 2013, at 23:08, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Lea Verou <lea@w3.org> wrote: >> I think having two functions for very similar functionality (absolute vs relative adjustment) is a bit clumsy and inelegant. Apart from that, great idea! Not sure adjusting RGB channels is useful, but adjusting HSL channels is super useful. > > It would be convenient if we could distinguish between "+50%" and > "50%", but you can't. > > On the other hand, we could go the calc route and require a space, so > that "adjust-alpha(red, 50%)" would set the alpha to 50%, but > "adjust-alpha(red, + 50%)" would make the alpha 50% larger. Seems > kinda clumsy, though. > > ~TJ >
Received on Thursday, 9 May 2013 20:17:01 UTC