- From: Amelia Bellamy-Royds via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 04:39:26 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I like the idea of working with the syntax we've got, although complicating the arguments of the color functions is starting to make dropping the commas look like a bad idea. There definitely needs to be some sort of grouping structure, even if it's just a mandatory wrapping `()` without a `calc` prefix, so that you can distinguish addition /subtraction from simply setting the next number in the sequence. And distinguish division from the new syntax of using `/` to separate the alpha channel. I find the use of the component initials as the placeholder for the starting value more intuitive & easier to read than `_`. But I recognize that there are long-term benefits to having a single token that works in any colour function, especially when you consider custom color systems. But maybe it could be both? The definitive syntax could use a generic placeholder, but allow the letters a synonyms in the common functions? I like the idea of using a `from <color>` keyword approach, especially when you consider that the color would often be a variable, and some of the parameters may also be variables, so an extra keyword would help in readability. So, what I'm thinking of is something like this: ```css rgb(from var(--backdrop), r g b/0.5) /* this is making alpha=0.5, not changing the blueness!*/ hsl(from var(--accent), h (s/2) (l - 20%)) lab(from var(--primary), var(--luminance) a b) ``` Re @birtles musing about an additive mode: we could define it so that the relative adjustments are valid without the `from <color>,` bit. The color could default to transparent black, but in additive mode it could be whatever the base color in the adjustment stack is. -- GitHub Notification of comment by AmeliaBR Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3187#issuecomment-429706481 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 15 October 2018 04:39:28 UTC