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

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

From: Chris Lilley via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 06:50:58 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-231573971-1468133456-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
L in lch and lab is indeed a number in the range 0 to 100 (except some
 currently rare  high dynamic range applications, where I have seen L 
as high as 400). I didn't specify it as a percentage, because it is 
never given as a percentage anywhere lab or lch is used. Thus, I 
valued compatibility with existing usage. I can see usability issues 
if the percent sign is required, as people will forget to add it.

I don't strongly oppose percent, but wanted to document the reasons 
for the original design decision.

I can see Tab's point that commas are not needed for unambiguous 
parsing. I do think that comma to separate color ags from alpha is 
more readable.

Attempting to unify lab and lch would be confusing and a regressive 
step. The self-documenting names and compatibility with existing 
practice is, as Tab says, a good thing.

GitHub Notification of comment by svgeesus
Please view or discuss this issue at 
using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 10 July 2016 06:51:30 UTC

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