- From: Gordon P. Hemsley via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2022 02:08:16 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
GPHemsley has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts: == [css-color-4] Categories of `<color>` definition parts == In #7477 (44fa726d35699a50b7698085f494e3c203c1a2fc), the `<absolute-color-function>` was spun out of `<absolute-color-base>` in [the definition of `<color>`](https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/css-color-4/#color-syntax), which helped to make things cleaner and clearer. I wonder if it might be worthwhile to split the definitions up even further to explicitly identify one or more categories like the following: * Functions that support [legacy color syntax](https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/css-color-4/#color-syntax-legacy): rgb(), rgba(), hsl(), hsla(). * Colors that [resolve to sRGB values](https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/css-color-4/#resolving-sRGB-values): * hex colors * rgb() and rgba() values * hsl() and hsla() values * hwb() values * named colors I think a split like that could make it clearer to implementors that there are different considerations to be had for each. Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7836 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 6 October 2022 02:08:18 UTC