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

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

From: Jan Tosovsky <j.tosovsky@email.cz>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 01:11:22 +0200
To: "'www-style list'" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <013601cfa6cb$6be20460$43a60d20$@tosovsky@email.cz>
On 2014-07-23 Lea Verou 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.

Some XSL-FO formatters use 'grayscale' psedo profile for this:
http://mediawiki.renderx.com/index.php/XEP_User_Guide/Appendix_A_XSL-FO_Conformance#Color_Specifiers

But I take it rather as a syntactic sugar for CMYK: 0,0,0,blac(K).

However, if I understand correctly, CSS gray is sRGB based and hence potentially problematic for printing when transformed to device profiles. 

I like the approach of pseudo Gray/CMYK profiles as they allow me defining exact values which are preserved (in the PDF output) without profile conversions. So when I define gray, it is printed as shade of black instead of RGB composition. 

Btw, as non native speaker I am very often confused by grey/gray mess and it is unclear which one to use ;-)

Would 'lightness' be misleading here?

Jan
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2014 23:11:52 UTC

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