- From: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 14:57:49 +0200
- To: CSS Style <www-style@w3.org>
L. David Baron (2008-05-13): > On Tuesday 2004-10-19 01:13 +0200, David Latapie wrote: >> 4.2.1. RGB color values >> 4.2.1.1. RGBA color values >> 4.2.2. 'transparent' color keyword >> 4.2.3. HSL color values >> 4.2.3.1. HSL Examples >> 4.2.3.2. HSLA color values >> > http://csswg.inkedblade.net/spec/css3-color#issue-13 . <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Mar/0405.html> and <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Mar/0443.html> cover related editorial stuff, but I see them neither mentioned in the issue tracker nor incorporated into the Editor's Draft <http:// www.w3.org/TR/2008/ED-cvs-member-20080514>. I tend to agree with Fantasai's suggestion in <http://lists.w3.org/ Archives/Public/www-style/2008May/0146.html> to use "basic" and "extended" instead of "HTML4" and "SVG", although I still despise the X11 color keywords and consider "extended" almost euphemistic. > I think there is value in having a section for each possible type of > value. It's a common way of organizing references, and it's helpful > to implementors. Yes, but the current structure of sections (and subsections) is not optimal at all. Anchors should be left as is, if possible, but this is much less important than a coherent order.
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2008 12:58:04 UTC