Re: [css3-color] #rrggbbaa annotation

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Alberto Lepe <dev@alepe.com> wrote:
> If I want to do a massive change of color from #56726C to #88936C,
> replacing #HEX annotation its very easy, while replacing rgba() it is
> more difficult as it may have differences in spaces like
> rgba(86,114,108,0.5); and it would be necessary to convert #HEX values
> to rgb() values in order to match the same color. If there could be a
> #rrggbbaa annotation, the replacement could be done in seconds:
>
> background-color: #56726C80
>
> will become:
>
> background-color: #88936C80
>
> Easy! don't you think?

Precisely right.  Hex notation is the easiest thing to do
search-and-replace on, unless you are *very* good at enforcing a
particular format in writing your rgb().

> Otherwise, I should start writing everything in rgb() and rgba()
> annotation and forgot completely about #rrggbb annotations which I
> have been using for the last 10 years.

I've contemplated doing this exact same thing, despite the annoyance
it would cause to try and retrain myself into thinking about colors in
decimal.  (Thinking in %s would probably be a lot easier, but my
toolchain doesn't naturally express colors in %s.)  So far, though, I
haven't used transparent colors enough to justify this, and I'd prefer
to not have to if I can avoid it.

(I also find rgb/a() notation incredibly ugly when nested into other
functional notations, such as in a *-gradient() rule.  Functional
notation is always ugly when nested (in CSS, at least), and so can't
always be avoided, but I *greatly* prefer using named colors or hex
notation when writing gradient rules.)

~TJ

Received on Friday, 26 March 2010 18:33:22 UTC