W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2010

Re: [css3-color] #rrggbbaa annotation

From: Patrick Garies <pgaries@fastmail.us>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 03:41:18 -0500
Message-ID: <4BBAF3AE.4050400@fastmail.us>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
CC: Alberto Lepe <dev@alepe.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 2010-04-06 2:09 AM, Brad Kemper wrote:
> Oh come on. You'd seriously rather attach a script for parsing and
> converting hex values than to just use HSLA?

Sorry, I think that you misunderstood me. I was trying to say that it 
would be easier to:

(A) write a personal (unrelated) Web page with a script that converts 
from hex to RGBA or HSLA functional notation as a personal conversion 
tool that would be used to save time converting when you want to add 
alpha to an existing hex color

... than to...

(B) try to get |#RRGGBBAA| mandated and then use it in the period that 
it wouldn't be widely-implemented since workarounds would require more 
time and effort than the feature saves. Workarounds would likely involve 
(A) combined with fallback to an opaque version of the color.

Ultimately, the point was that (A) and (B) basically send you right back 
to where you started (not being able to avoid RGBA and HSLA) until 
support for the proposed feature becomes adequate. This is particularly 
going to be the case if it's not supported in IE9, but RGBA and HSLA 
are, since you will have to use those for years until the supposed 
time-saving feature is added to that browser.

It's not really a big point despite requiring a lot of space to explain. 
I just always find it funny when people propose a time-saving feature 
that duplicates existing functionality without considering that you 
might be waiting years before you can take advantage of the savings by 
avoiding doing things the other way.
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 08:41:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:44 UTC