Re: X11 Colors (was Last call comments on CSS3 module: color)

At 10:34 PM +0200 5/29/02, Chris Lilley wrote:
>Given that you are also proposing the (brain-dead, known flawed) HSV
>system with its multitude of known problems in terms of usability you
>are on rather shaky ground making thsese sorts of statements.

The name of the game here is "two wrongs don't make a right." If
the intent is to build a better specification, then you can't really
say "well THAT SUCKS TOO" when complaints are made -- unless the
goal is some sort of internal politics or ego thing. And we all
know THAT never happens at the W3C.

>SP> Well, the need for named colours is clear.
>No, not really. Anyone can make up their own names and declare them as
>entities (in any XML document) and use them. For browsers that use a
>real XML parser, of course. For external CSS files, people need to use
>a preprocessor I guess.

So this is an argument against named colors; okay, but that doesn't
mean that _badly named_ colors are an acceptable choice either.

>SP> I can name a dozen features of HTML that also fulfil all these properties,
>SP> but that we are nevertheless ruthlessly consigning to the garbage can of
>SP> history where they belong.
>
>Cool. And for new formats starting with a clean slate, like XHTML 2,
>that is exactly right.

I may not be up on the correct charters. Why couldn't CSS 3 likewise
eliminate poorly designed language features?

>  >> One intent of CSS3 Color is provide some harmonization between the color
>  >> features in SVG and CSS.  The X11 colors are a part of that.
>SP> And shouldn't be. Two messes do not make a clean design.
>Ah, not only are X11 colors a mess but now, SVG is a mess too?

Perhaps you should consider this as reading "two wrongs don't make
a right", then.

>Again,
>thats pretty rich coming from the HTML working group. How many
>implementations pass the XHTML test suite? Oh, yes, there isn't one.
>HTML is one large, smelly mess, and worse due to the design flaws in
>XHTML 1.x that allowed content to be served to existing browsers as if
>that would somehow work, it is spreading non well formed content that
>purports to be XML. So please, get you own house in order before
>accusing others of "mess".

Uhm.  This is about the technical merits of the proposals and not about
some sort of dick-waving, right?  We're not playing "mine is bigger
than yours", right?  And we're not debating an XHTML 2 proposal now,
right?

I'm not on the HTML working group, the CSS working group, or the SVG
working group, and I agree with Steven.  What is your plan for insulting
-me- now -- telling me that WCAG 2.0 sucks?

>Moving onto technical topics - what better solution would you propose?

Oh, good! Technical topics! Put that thing away now, and don't forget
to zip up your pants!

--Kynn

-- 
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                 http://kynn.com
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain            http://idyllmtn.com
Next Book: Teach Yourself CSS in 24       http://cssin24hours.com
Kynn on Web Accessibility ->>          http://kynn.com/+sitepoint

Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 17:36:08 UTC