- From: Deron Meranda via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 20:08:45 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
It's also worth mentioning again that whoever wrote the description for the gray function in the CSS draft also thought, at least momentarily, that ```gray(50%)``` was legal and represented a mid-level gray. It may be more than just a typo, but perhaps an indicator there is a mismatch between intuition and the spec. I suspect if you're using the ```lab``` or ```lch``` color functions you have some exposure to color theory, or you have at least had to read about them because those terms are not in the general public English vocabulary. You may even know that the L* parameter is just a unitless dimension on an axis that was arbitrarily defined to be within the range 0 to 100. Though even there, was the intent of that decision be that the numbers look like percentages without the %-sign? But everyone knows "gray"., and people that use ```gray``` are probably relying on a more informal intuitive sense. When using ```rgb``` with percentage values it's intuitive that 0% should mean the minimum value for that color component and 100% means the maximum value. And I would think a similar intuition would occur for people using ```gray```. Even if they mistakenly thought ```gray(50%)``` would be the same as ```rgb(50% 50% 50%)```, which it is not, at least they would expect the two to be almost the same, which they are. But certainly ```gray(50)``` is wildly different from ```rgb(50 50 50)```. And ```gray(255)``` is absurd, and one I suspect could be a common error. But the intent of a percentage value is clear. Which ever way is fine, but it has to be made clear the ```gray(<x> [/ <y>])``` is syntactic sugar for ```lab(<x> 0 0 [/ <y>])```, and what the acceptable values for ```<x>``` are; and all three of ```gray```, ```lab```, and ```lch``` should accept the same value types. -- GitHub Notification of comment by dmeranda Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/635#issuecomment-256160101 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2016 20:08:51 UTC