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

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-color] color({num}3, 4) "shorthand"/alternate for rgb

From: Florian Rivoal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 09:06:40 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-231311567-1467968797-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
I have no strong opinion for or against this. I can see why you may 
want this, but I don't think the need is that pressing. I'm OK either 

However, if we do that, I think we should keep the coma between the 
optional color profile and the parameters, unlike what 
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/266 is proposing.

I don't want `color(0 0 1)` to mean blue while `color(O 0 1)` (that's 
an upper case o) to mean the `0 1` color in the color profile defined 
by `@profile O { src: url('O.icc'); }`. This would be unambiguous for 
parsers, but error prone for humans.

If we have a comma in there, `color(0 0 1)` and `color(O, 0 1)` are 
still sort of close, but far enough in my view.

GitHub Notification of comment by frivoal
Please view or discuss this issue at 
using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 8 July 2016 09:06:50 UTC

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