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 
way.

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 
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/275#issuecomment-231311567 
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