W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > June 2014

Re: [whatwg] brand-color meta extension

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 11:42:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE5ia_m-ELnGpP7X=P_LCxb+rUVV9Y92VTW6K31FVaaspe3Ew@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Tao Bai <michaelbai@google.com>
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2014, Tao Bai wrote:
>> The brand color is super set of them and not limited to use in the
>> navbutton or status bar, furthermore, not all browsers have navbutton or
>> status concept, it makes developer confused.
>
> I don't think it confuses authors any more, and possibly a lot less, than
> having three ways to do essentially the same thing.
>
>> The "msapplication-navbutton-color" and
>> "apple-mobile-web-app-status-bar-style" are prefix and browser specific,
>> brand-color is general and could be standard for all browsers.
>
> That the keywords are prefixed is a mistake made by the relevant vendors,
> but I don't think it should stop us from using them if they are
> appropriate.
>
> Looking at those two keywords more closely, it seems that
> "apple-mobile-web-app-status-bar-style" wouldn't work because it doesn't
> take a CSS colour, it takes some specific keywords. However,
> "msapplication-navbutton-color", and, maybe better,
> "msapplication-TileColor", seem like pretty good fits to me. I don't
> really understand why one would avoid just reusing those, either instead
> of, or at least as well as, a newer more generic term.

If I were trying evangelize the use of this feature, I wouldn't want
to recommend that web developers use a vendor-prefixed feature.  I
wish either Apple or Microsoft hadn't used a vendor-prefixed name, but
they both did.

Adam
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 18:43:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:21 UTC