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

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-color] Unnecessary comma in color()

From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 23:56:49 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-231900328-1468281407-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
I... I don't understand what you people have against percentages.  
It's "industry practice" to use 0-1 floats *because those languages 
(mostly C++) don't have any standard way to do typed-numbers and so 
just expose them as floats*.  CSS *does* have easy ways to do typed 
numbers, which are trivial to use and aid in readability. 

Like, Lea says in her comment that `color(foo .1 .2 .3 .5)` is hard to
 read, because it's unclear whether the fourth number is a fourth arg 
to the colorspace or the alpha (I agree).  But if you just write 
`color(foo .1 .2 .3 50%)`, that problem completely disappears - it's 
now 100% obvious that the last one is an alpha, even at a casual 
glance.  I argue that this is *easier* to read than `color(foo .1 .2 
.3, .5)`, and they're exactly the same number of characters, so the 
"save bytes" argument doesn't apply.

> When things in CSS are space-separated, people expect to be able to 
use any order, unless there is an obvious ambiguity (e.g. all 
numbers). I think when there is a specified order, it's more clear to 
have a comma.

I don't think it's unusual to have "names" come before "arguments".  
Everything else about this function is precisely ordered already, and 
I somewhat agree with dino's argument that we shouldn't make it 
difficult to remember where the commas need to be.

GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins
Please view or discuss this issue at 
using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 11 July 2016 23:56:55 UTC

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