- From: Daniel Glazman <glazman@netscape.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 12:04:45 +0200
- To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- CC: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, www-style@w3.org, HTML WG <w3c-html-wg@w3.org>, Andrew Clover <and@doxdesk.com>
A rumor says that Steven Pemberton wrote: >Well, the need for named colours is clear. The first Mosaic was on X right? >So it is not surprising that they just used an existing name set that worked >out of the box. > Right. It just had to parse the contents of /usr/X11R5/lib/X11/rgb.txt to be all set. I have to agree with Steven (I have always complained about the X11 color set) : color names are just crazy. I saw a few days ago an evangelism bug caused by an invalid CSS color name belonging to X11 set : palegoldenrod. I was just unable to imagine what color it represents looking at the name. By the way, Mozilla/Netscape accept a restricted X11 color set, even on non-X platforms... A lot of web sites already use colors from this set. Could you believe that MS sites are in the list ?-) Conclusions : right, the X11 color set should not be a standard 'de jure'... ooops, too bad, that's already a standard 'de facto'. We have to live with it, I'm afraid. http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/layout/tools/ColorNames.txt </Daniel>
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 06:00:52 UTC