- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 15:14:41 -0700
- To: Peter Moulder <Peter.Moulder@infotech.monash.edu.au>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Tuesday 2008-05-13 15:15 +1000, Peter Moulder wrote: > > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 05:04:09PM -0700, L. David Baron wrote: > > > This has been recorded as > > http://csswg.inkedblade.net/spec/css3-color#issue-19 and has been > > addressed in the editor's draft at > > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-color/#svg-color by adding the > > sentence: > > # This specification extends their definition beyond SVG. > > Can sections 4.1 and 4.3 be merged, then? Suggested title ‘Color > keywords’. We could still start by listing the 16 HTML colours (or 17 > CSS 2.1 colours, = HTML + orange) given that they include the most basic > colours. > > Having a single section makes it clearer that there's no distinction in > their treatment as far as css3-color is concerned. Reorganizing the specification at this level of maturity has a bit of cost (breaking links people have, requiring reorganization of the test suite, etc.). It also makes it a lot harder to write the profiles section I reference below. Do you really think that's worth it? (I'd have agreed if you made this comment during last call.) > If a motivation for having separate lists is to give information on > backwards compatibility, then I'd have thought it more valuable to > identify the colour specifications supported by CSS 2.1 > (http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#color-units) > than those supported by HTML attributes. http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-color/#profiles does this already, I think. -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2008 22:15:18 UTC