W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > July 2016

[csswg-drafts] [css-color] Lab and LCH pseudo functions differ too much from others

From: Christoph Päper via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 22:07:13 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issues.opened-163957553-1467756431-sysbot+gh@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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:00 UTC