- From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:13:13 +0200
- To: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Cc: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@tu-clausthal.de>, www-style@w3.org
Matthew Raymond wrote: >> There also seems to be little reason not to allow alpha values in the >> short and long hexadecimal format, they would just have to gain a digit: >> #0000--#FFFF and #00000000--#FFFFFFFF. After all, from my experience, >> this is the most popular form for specifying colors out there in >> stylesheets. I will not go as far as suggesting, that something like >> "rgb(#0, #F, #0F)" (= "#00FF0F" = "rgb(0, 255, 15)") should be allowed. > Nice idea, too. > Okay, sounds fine. Or perhaps we could do something to make it a > bit more clear like "##FFFFFFFF" or "#FFFFFF-FF". Don’t see why. Red, green and blue aren’t distinguished from another either, why should the opacity value be different. And the ## seems to unnecessarily complicate things. Neither #FFFFFFFF nor the shorthand #FFFF will conflict with anything else. > There's still the backwards compatibility problem in that "1" can > be "1.0" in the current spec. Perhaps we'd be better off dropping > float and making the ranges for alpha 0-255 and 0%-100%, just like the > values in rgb(). Personally, I’d prefer 0...255, 0%...100% and 0.0...1.0 to apply to both the rgb values and the alpha channel. That makes it consistent, and I like the thought of specifying colour values in the 0-1 range, although in practice few people will probably use that. ~Grauw -- Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands. Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.
Received on Wednesday, 13 July 2005 18:13:15 UTC