W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > December 2019

Re: [csswg-drafts] [MQ] color-gamut Keywords (#4535)

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:20:03 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-564646166-1576084802-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[MQ] color-gamut Keywords`.

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: [MQ] color-gamut Keywords<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4535<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Is chris on?<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: I think he is<br>
&lt;dael> [silence]<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I think he said since they mean different it's okay that they are different<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: I want to ask followups. I think it's bad that they're slightly different and spelled differently. I want to discuss with him on.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: fwiw I agree with you on principle to either merge or break far apart<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I think chris is saying- there's 2 things to consider. One is this is shipping in impl. Other is these are not keywords that hook into those color profiles. They hook into color profile that's similar tot he named profile. There's a concern if we rename to match the color profile keywords people will expect to match that profile exactly.<br>
&lt;fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/mediaqueries/#color-gamut<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: The definition is much more handwavy<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I don't think spelling is enough.<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Original intent is they were intended to be the same. That they divereged now seems after the fact reasoning. Shouldn't play into if it's good.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Is other shipping?<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: No<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: We can rename it but can't change to be equally value<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Meaning can't change. Property is intentionally specific.<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Maybe<br>
&lt;dael> florian: If divergence is accidental then solution seems easy<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: We'd need to remove the dash from ref-2020 which makes it less consistent, but it's not a huge deal since the - is just between word and number. Just realign the color keywords.<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: Concern is using the keywords for meanings and when people are using color profile as color values would they expect to use the MQs to test specifically what profile is supported.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Keywords have same meaning, MQ has different. MQ is if the gamut is roughly similar<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Reasonable to conclude if gamut is P3 you should be able to use the full range and have it work. Might have some clipping at the ends<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: Sounds like call preference is to revert some of the changes to keywords in color profiles so they match color gamut MQ keywords<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: That might be pending objections from chris<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Put in GH and sit on it for a week<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Yep<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Let's not resolve now we can take it next week.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Proposed resolution is align the color function keywords with preexisting color gamut keywords<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4535#issuecomment-564646166 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2019 17:20:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:57 UTC