Re: [css3-color] #rrggbbaa annotation

On 2010-04-04 9:55 PM, Eduard Pascual wrote:
> Can anyone bring forth any *objective* argument against
> #rrggbbaa/#rgba? (and keep in mind that "it's ugly" is an aesthetic
> perception, so it is not objective... actually, I find rgb() and its
> kind ugly, and hex-notation quite elegant).

Such arguments have already been put forward. To summarize:

1. Hex notation is likely not fully understood by most authors.

2. Use of hex notation is harder to teach than the functional notation.

3. It is generally more difficult to determine what the used color is
than with RGB functional notation.

Exceptions include basic colors such as red, green, blue, yellow,
magenta, cyan, black, white, and shades of gray; for other colors, it
would be harder to decipher what they are. It's already hard enough to
do that with functional notation.

4. It is generally more difficult to create a color without the aid of a
color generator or color list than with RGB functional notation.

Ditto on the above exceptions which are easy to commit to memory, but
that's bypassing the mechanism more than using it since you're only
using zeros, "F"s, or sequences of identical characters (i.e., for
shades of gray).

5. You have to get someone to volunteer to specify it.

6. You have to get someone from all of the major browser vendors to
implement it. Then you have to be willing to work around targeted
browsers that don't support it or accept CSS fallback which may consume
more time than this feature saves.

7. You have to add it to CSS learning guides.

8. You have to be willing to delay CSS3 reaching W3C Recommendation
status or deferring this to CSS4.

9. The benefit is marginal since it duplicates existing functionality.

Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 07:17:46 UTC