W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2014

Re: [css-color-4] Renaming gray()

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 22:56:44 +0200
Message-ID: <82330579.20140723225644@w3.org>
To: Lea Verou <lea@verou.me>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Hello Lea,

Wednesday, July 23, 2014, 8:01:48 PM, you wrote:

> The gray() functional notation [1] is a great idea for specifying
> desaturated colors with varying degrees of transparency in a concise
> and readable way. However, I’m not sure about the naming. Right now,
> the named color `gray` corresponds to gray(50%). gray(0%) is black and gray(100%) is white.

Suggest rename: 100ShadesOf(gray%)


> After using this function myself for a while (through emulating it
> in SASS), I’m starting to think its naming is quite unintuitive. The
> usual assumption with functions that take a 0-100% parameter is that
> 100% gives the full “effect” of the function name, in this case,
> gray.

That is a good point. Hence opacity(%) rather than transparency(%).

> Ask any random person what color they think gray(100%)
> represents, I doubt they’d guess white.


> Although, I’m not sure if white(0%) == black is exactly
> intuitive, but it seems more intuitive than gray(0%).

Right. Would they guess better for black(0%) = white or white(0%) =
black?



-- 
Best regards,
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2014 20:56:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:23 UTC