- From: Lea Verou via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2026 15:53:00 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> That doesn't really answer the question of whether carrying forward analogous missing components is expected _as part of the color conversion process_, as suggested when you said "The intention is to preserve missing components / `none` as much as possible. So if there are algorithms where it isn't stated and where it could be preserved, then we should change that." Every use of §11 Converting Colors, such as for serialization as discussed in [#10254](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10254), _could_ preserve missing components. Currently only interpolation in Colors 4 and relative color functions in Colors 5 do so, because only those are called out explicitly and the spec text says it should not be done otherwise. I'm looking for a resolution between this apparent contradiction between informal spec author statements and the spec text. I was very confused about this question until I saw the [spec text](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-color-4/#color-conversion) @nex3 is referring to. The entire point of analogous component sets (neé analogous components) is carrying forwards missing components in color space conversion. Analogous component sets are properties of a binary relationship between two color spaces. There is no concept of an analogous component set without a second color space — analogous to what? In [§11 Converting Colors](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-color-4/#color-conversion) step 2 says: > Replace any [missing component](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-color-4/#missing-color-component) with zero. That definitely needs fixing!! -- GitHub Notification of comment by LeaVerou Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10210#issuecomment-4297752895 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 22 April 2026 15:53:00 UTC