Re: [css3-colors] Comments on Last Call

Tantek Çelik:
> On 2/16/03 4:57 AM, "Christoph Päper" <christoph.paeper@tu-clausthal.de>
>
> <alpha> values were introduced as values between 0 and 1 in the SVG 1.0
> specification.  CSS3 Color continues with that convention.

I've never cared that much about SVG (neither Macromedia Flash), and have
never read the spec myself, but it seems to me, that at least the CSS part
of it was done without the amount of care (and/or public feedback) that is
put into the real CSS. I assume it was mainly done by graphic artists, who
are used to certain things (X11, 0..1 alpha value), which are dumb or
unlogic for historical reasons, and thus didn't even think of changing that.

IMVHO this has some negative impact on CSS, which obviously tries to
acommodate as many exisiting specs as possible. They're listed in "Status of
this document".

I've similar feelings about XSL.

>> 3.4. The 'rendering-intent' property
>>
>> Hm, all the other baby-blue tables have more details than just the
>> property name.
>
> Perhaps a problem with the W3C
> working draft style sheet and your browser?

Seems so, although I don't see the reason for it, it displays okay in Opera
7.

>> would prefer to see the algorithms expressed in English, although
>> ABC is somehow close to that.
>
> Since it sounds like ABC is acceptable to you,

To me and implementors perhaps. I just wanted to remark that some,
especially novices, might be offended when confronted with an unknown
programming language in a specification. CSS3: List for example relies much
on algorithms and requires them to be in English. Just noticed that you're
an editor of that one, too.

>> Nothing against it, but camelCase isn't something CSS used to use, is it?
>> System colors use it, but with the starting letter being capital =>
>> 'CurrentColor'.
>
> Values in CSS are case-insensitive,

Sure.

> The particular capitalization 'currentColor' is used in the spec simply
> because that is the same capitalization that is used for that value in the
> SVG specifications.

IMHO a specification should be consistent with itself in the first place,
rather than something it refers to. It's of course a very minor issue.

Christoph

Received on Monday, 14 April 2003 17:43:01 UTC