- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2022 18:39:13 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `candidates optional in contrast-color()`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: Make candidates optional, use white / black if there's no available options that pass the contrast test` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <emilio> Subtopic: candidates optional in contrast-color()<br> <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7345<br> <emilio> fantasai: proposed resolution is that candidates are optional and default to white and black<br> <emilio> una: sounds good, it simplifies the function. We've talked about future-proofing and verbosity I think this is perfect, and I think "I just want good contrast" will be a large use case<br> <TabAtkins> emilio: wht happens if you have one candidate?<br> <TabAtkins> TabAtkins: you just get white/black if you fall off the list<br> <lea> emilio: if that passes, it's returned, otherwise you get white or black<br> <emilio> RESOLVED: Make candidates optional, use white / black if there's no available options that pass the contrast test<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7345#issuecomment-1203082714 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2022 18:39:14 UTC