- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 15:23:46 -0700
- To: Adam Kuehn <akuehn@nc.rr.com>
- Cc: "'Mikko Rantalainen'" <mira@st.jyu.fi>, "'W. Leon Sutton, Jr.'" <wsuttonjr@hyponiqs.com>, "'fantasai'" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
On Tuesday 2008-05-13 13:14 -0400, Adam Kuehn wrote:
> First, it isn't really the addition of a full-blown "feature". RGBA is
> already the specified feature. This suggestion adds only a notational
> convention to access the feature.
I really don't see how you can say it's not a feature. A new syntax
for the same thing is a feature. It would still delay the spec
advancing to recommendation, since there are not two interoperable
implementations of the feature.
> Finally, implementation of a hex notation, whatever the agreed format,
> should be completely trivial. Parsers are just not that hard to write when
> the input format is clearly specified and inflexible. The code for
> producing the actual color is already there for use, as you just explained
> ("current feature set...is...widely implemented").
It's not trivial to ship that in already-released browsers.
-David
--
L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2008 22:24:33 UTC