Color Names ; was Re: New CSS1 draft -Reply -Reply
If the names were that bad, couldn't we (the big we)
come up with better ones? For example, instead of
"cornflower" how about "cornflower blue".
It's been a long time since I used crayons, but I
seem to remember a "cornflower blue" crayon in the
big box of crayola crayons. And hey, if that isn't
a standard, I don't know what is :)
Speaking of standards, I've seen these color names
when using X-Windows applications. Are they part
of some X specification? Could we refer to that
as part of the CSS specification?
(to David Perrell:I accidentally sent this just
to when I meant to send it to the whole group,
which is why you're getting it twice.)
>>> David Perrell <email@example.com> 07/26/96 06:34pm >>>
>Charles Peyton Taylor wrote:
>> >>> Bert Bos <Bert.Bos@sophia.inria.fr> 07/26/96 03:28pm >>>
>> > - the color names are now the same as in HTML 3.2
>> > Why? I liked having the large pallet of colors to choose >
>Subjective names. "Cornflower" was the final straw. Studies
>proved that poor-spelling bakers with little botanical knowledge
>invariably assumed it was a sort of "powder yellow."