- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:28:11 +0100
- To: "Jonathan Stanley" <jon@asciigrackle.eclipse.co.uk>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
On Thursday, February 27, 2003, 1:51:27 PM, Jonathan wrote: JS> Right I see, far greater prescision than I think anyone would JS> need, however, I assumed the values were indeed 0.0 to 1.0, with 1 JS> decimal place accuracy, as that's what secion 3.2 implied with JS> regards to opacity: JS> Computed value: The same as the specified value after clipping the JS> <alphavalue> to the range [0.0,1.0]. No, that merely gives the numerical range. Numbers cannot be less than zero or more than one. JS> --- JS> If it is, say to 6 decimal places, It is not to any particular number of decimal places. >> I agree that this aspect should be more clearly specified. It seems >> obvious that hue is a wraparound value but for consistency of >> implementation, it should be explicitly stated. JS> Thanks :) JS> It working correctly as a wraparound value would be good for JS> scripting (no need to check "out of bound" values in runtime) and JS> better for accessibilty (ie, how to clip value, render as JS> black/white/transparent/etc) I tend to agree that wraparound is better. >> There is an issue with hyphens in names, to do with scripting. In >> response to a request from the DOm working group, SVG WG changed >> all the names that it had to camelCase, except for existing CSS >> names that we did not control. JS> Right I see, would this also mean existing CSS1/CSS2 hyphenated JS> names become depreciated in this/future versions of the CSS JS> specification? Well, the SVG WG could not make that decision. The CSS WG could, if it chose. -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 12:28:35 UTC