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, 24 Jul 2016 00:44:54 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-234749569-1469321092-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
rgb values outside 0.0% to 100.0% were indeed allowed but were poorly 
defined, see #288 and css4-color will discourage their use and do 
per-component clamping if they are specified. It is correct that 
0..255 numbers are 8bit only, this is a historical limitation based on
 the time CSS1 was defined (indexed displays were common and truecolor
 24bit displays were seen as high-end). The percentage notation was to
 disambiguate numbers like 0 or 1 which a 0.0..1.0 range would have 
made problematic; this is why we ended up with a 0.0% to 100.0% for 
specifying meaningful colors. These are numerically equivalent to 0.0 
to 1.0 (100/100).

I agree that consistency is good, but there are so many things to be 
consistent with :) for example some have argued for mandatory commas 
between components like rgb() has, because all the existing 
color-related notations use commas except for hex notation; while Tab 
argues against commas because in some non-color parts of CSS comma is 
used to separate lists.

The discussion on commas and separators for alpha is ongoing and 
vigorous. Leaving this issue open until that settles down.

GitHub Notification of comment by svgeesus
Please view or discuss this issue at 
using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 24 July 2016 00:45:05 UTC

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