- From: Chris Lilley via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2023 18:53:09 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> For what it is worth, Chrome supports none in all 4 syntaxes. It does? We currently have [good interop on what is invalid for `rgb()` and `rgba()`](https://wpt.fyi/results/css/css-color/parsing/color-invalid-rgb.html?label=experimental&label=master&aligned) and that test [currently says](https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/110db32916fd001c122f049a40fe2004a2490f33/css/css-color/parsing/color-invalid-rgb.html#L17-L20): ```html ["rgb(none, none, none)", "The none keyword is invalid in legacy color syntax"], ["rgba(none, none, none, none)", "The none keyword is invalid in legacy color syntax"], ["rgb(128, 0, none)", "The none keyword is invalid in legacy color syntax"], ["rgb(255, 255, 255, none)", "The none keyword is invalid in legacy color syntax"], ``` Do we really want to make legacy, comma-based rgb and rgba accept 'none'? I [agree with @tabatkins]() that mixing `<number>` and `<percentage>` across the board would be good: > That said, I definitely support loosening the restriction; it seems like a legacy constraint from an earlier age of CSS design. I'm a lot less convinced that allowing legacy, comma-based syntaxes to accept 'none' (and RCS??) would be a good idea. Although having re-read this and related issues for the _n_ th time, I'm also not sure if that is actually being proposed. -- GitHub Notification of comment by svgeesus Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7900#issuecomment-1421286182 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2023 18:53:11 UTC