Color Names ; was Re: New CSS1 draft -Reply -Reply

If the names were that bad, couldn't we (the big we) 
come up with better ones?  For example, instead of 
"cornflower" how about "cornflower blue".  

It's been a long time since I used crayons, but I 
seem to remember a "cornflower blue" crayon in the 
big box of crayola crayons. And hey, if that isn't 
a standard, I don't know what is :)  

Speaking of standards, I've seen these color names 
when using X-Windows applications.  Are they part 
of some X specification?  Could we refer to that
as part of the CSS specification?


Charles Taylor


(to David Perrell:I accidentally sent this just 
to when I meant to send it to the whole group, 
which is why you're getting it twice.)


>>> David Perrell <davidp@earthlink.net> 07/26/96 06:34pm >>>
>Charles Peyton Taylor wrote:
>> >>> Bert Bos <Bert.Bos@sophia.inria.fr> 07/26/96 03:28pm >>>
>> >...
>> > - the color names are now the same as in HTML 3.2
>>  > Why?  I liked having the large pallet of colors to choose  >
>from.  
>
>Subjective names. "Cornflower" was the final straw. Studies
>proved that poor-spelling bakers with little botanical knowledge
>invariably assumed it was a sort of "powder yellow."
>
>

Received on Sunday, 28 July 1996 16:27:51 UTC