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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:19:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDA=P4j8W9Yhb_rFN8_C1nQttWFH1FTmvCyhOnoGEdf7EQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Lea Verou <lea@verou.me>
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net> wrote:
>>> 2. CSS is tied more closely to RGB than CMYK
>>>
>>> If there was black(x) I'd expect it to be a shorthand for cmyk(0,0,0,x), but
>>> use of actual CMYK colors in CSS can be a can of worms (it should be subject
>>> to color profiles, but then black(0) may be different than rgb(0,0,0)).
>>>
>>> However in the RGB world white(x) can be simply explained as rgb(255*x,
>>> 255*x, 255*x), but the same doesn't make sense for black: rgb(0*x, 0*x,
>>> 0*x).
>>
>> Black is just (100% - x) for each component.
>
> Well, of course it is. My point was that because of the inversion the formula for black->rgb isn't as simple and elegant as for white->rgb.

Okay. I don't think the conversion formula is very relevant here,
though; the intuitiveness is based more on the name than how direct
the translation is.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2014 22:20:24 UTC

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