- From: Florian Rivoal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 03:38:34 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
There is wide agreement that the vast majority of color names in css are nonsensical / non descriptive / generally useless. They are kept not because we like them, but because they're necessary for web compat. We're not going to rename them to better names, because we've given up on color names altogether. Those that are there are frozen as is for compatibility, and the policy for many years has been not to add or change anything. We even have [an entry about](https://wiki.csswg.org/faq#adding-more-named-colors) that in our (fairly short) FAQ. Removing those that are merely nonsensical would result in dropping a large part of the list, which isn't doable. So, the fact that these are terrible names for colors is irrelevant. The whole set is terrible. It may be desirable to list as deprecated those terms that are offensive. Note that depreciation in itself doesn't mean they won't be supported by browsers, just that the spec will describe them as such. Actual removal would requiring demostrating that this can be done without breaking sites, or convincing browsers that they should break sites, which is unlikely. I still haven't seen an argument for why `navajowhite` and `moccasin` were offensive. > I'd be comfortable with the loan word if it were a colour. "chartreuse" is there as well, it's also a loanword, and it's also in reference to something that isn't a color in the original language (which is French, and in French it's the name of an type of alcohol, which is itself named after a place). Again, all these color names are silly. That's not the same as offensive. -- GitHub Notification of comment by frivoal Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5284#issuecomment-666076507 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2020 03:38:38 UTC