- From: Christoph Päper via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 22:07:13 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Crissov has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts: == [css-color] Lab and LCH pseudo functions differ too much from others == In [Specifying Lab and LCH: the lab() and lch() functional notations](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-color/#specifying-lab-lch), there’s no reason given why these should not use **mandatory commas** between values and the obviously more **appropriate types** instead of generic `<<number>>`. Current definitions ---- ```bikeshed <dfn>lab()</dfn> = lab( <<number>> <<number>> <<number>> , <<alpha-value>>? ) <dfn>lch()</dfn> = lch( <<number>> <<number>> <<number>> , <<alpha-value>>? ) ``` Proposed definitions ---- ```bikeshed <dfn>lab()</dfn> = lab( <<percentage>>, <<number>>, <<number>> [, <<alpha-value>>]? ) <dfn>lch()</dfn> = lch( <<percentage>>, <<number>>, <<hue>> [, <<alpha-value>>]? ) ``` I’m glad there are no `laba()` and `lcha` variants and wish `rgb()` and `hsl()` could be retrofitted, so that `rgba()` and `hsla()` could be deprecated, especially now that `<<alpha-value>>` accepts percentages. If `<<hue>>` didn’t accept unit-less numbers for legacy reasons, one could even imagine a unified `cie()` function notation. Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/272 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2016 22:07:20 UTC