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 
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/272#issuecomment-234749569 
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