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

Re: [css3-color] #rrggbbaa annotation

From: Patrick Garies <pgaries@fastmail.us>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 23:21:35 -0500
Message-ID: <4BBEAB4F.6050600@fastmail.us>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
CC: Eduard Pascual <herenvardo@gmail.com>, Alberto Lepe <dev@alepe.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Keep in mind that this was only a summary of /cons/.

On 2010-04-06 9:08 AM, Brad Kemper wrote:
> Your arguments 1-4 are against #rrggbb in general, and yet it is the
> mostly widespread way to specify color.

Agreed. They're all accurate and I still maintain that they're more
difficult to directly use and read than the alternatives, but, at this
point, I'm just going to accept the status quo.

> Your arguments 5-8 are true of any new proposal (and have been
> addressed in relation to this proposal).

Right. I had already seen Alberto's offer to volunteer. I was merely
summarizing what had been put forth.

> Your argument 9 is against having any choices in how to specify
> colors, and is therefore against pretty much the entire CSS3 Color
> module.

I disagree with this statement; CSS3 Color has added things that are new
(e.g., element opacity and color opacity) and formalized previously
nonstandard techniques that have already been widely implemented (e.g.,
SVG color keywords).

The idea was that this feature is effectively redundant with HSLA and
RGBA and doesn't add anything that makes things easier.

However, it /does/ apparently make things easier for those that already
have hex code as a starting point (for whatever reason) and can come up
with alpha values in hex (if they weren't already provided by the
generator), so I'll just concede #9 on that point. (It seems moot at 
this point anyway.)
Received on Friday, 9 April 2010 04:22:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:45 UTC