- From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 14:45:41 +0200
- To: <www-style@w3.org>
- Cc: "HTML WG" <w3c-html-wg@w3.org>
Congratulations on an excellent specification. Many of the new facilities will be extremely useful. With one exception. The X11 colour names are an abomination that should have been stifled at birth, and adding them to CSS is a blemish on the otherwise excellent design of CSS. To say that the X11 colour set and their names have been 'designed' is an insult to the word "design". It is just a mess. Let me just describe some of the problems: * The set of colours described is very non-uniform. Look at http://www.cwi.nl/~steven/css/x11huegraph.html as an example to see how the hues are distributed: a vast over-representation of reds just to start off with. * The names are just randomly put together. Some colours have a dark version (like red and darkred) but not all; 17 colours have 'dark' versions, but only 13 have 'light' versions. There's a mediumblue, but not mediumred; there are 15 varieties of 'blue' but only 6 of 'red'; there are cultural references built in ('dodgerblue'???). So I can neither construct the colour I want, nor know what a colour name refers to (gainsboro? papayawhip?) * On top of that, the naming scheme is inconsistent: darkgray is lighter than gray! lightpink is darker than pink! (OK, I'll stop using exclamation marks now) It is gray and darkgray, but lightgrEy brown is not very brown; actually a dark red What do you expect the difference is between seagreen and mediumseagreen is? (seagreen is darker) What do you expect the difference is between aquamarine and mediumaquamarine (aquamarine is lighter) There's a mediumvioletred and palevioletred, but no violetred There's lightgoldenrodyellow but no goldenrodyellow, just goldenrod There's darkolivegreen but no olivegreen, just olive There's palevioletred but no violetred. Well, I could go on, but I'll stop here. You get the picture. There is no possible reason that the X11 names should be added to CSS. There are two possible solutions: 1) Take the standard 6x6x6 internet non-dithering color cube that is implemented everywhere, and agree on names for each of the colors there. But: "The browser-safe palette was developed by programmers with no design sense, I assure you. That's because a designer would have never picked these colors. Mostly, the palette contains far less light and dark colors than I wish it did, and is heavy on highly saturated colors and low on muted, tinted or toned colors." - Lynda Weinman http://www.lynda.com/hex.html 2) Take a consistent naming scheme that properly addresses all dimensions of the color space, and map this naming scheme algorithmically to appropriate colours. For instance: <color>::= [<saturation> || <lightness> || <transparency>]? <hue> <lightness>::= [very|slightly]? [dark|light] <saturation>::= [very|slightly]? weak <transparency>::= [very|slightly]? transparent <hue>::= <prime> | <mix> | <special> <prime>::= red | yellow | green | cyan | blue | magenta <mix>::= orange | yellow-green | green-cyan | cyan-blue | blue-magenta | magenta-red (add red-yellow if you want) <special>::= pink | brown | aqua | teal | grey | gray | black | white | purple | silver | turquoise | violet | <possible others> Examples: red light red very light blue weak dark green / dark weak green slightly dark magenta-red transparent cyan See http://www.cwi.nl/~steven/css/colour-lang.html for a quick try at a mapping, which still needs tweaking. Best wishes, Steven Pemberton
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2002 08:45:44 UTC