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

Re: [css3-color] #rrggbbaa annotation

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 17:37:30 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikwRPNUd190n8xd0a6_G7O0vIJxHB7zeHnHWDur@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
Cc: Eli Morris-Heft <eli.morris.heft@gmail.com>, Alex Meiburg <timeroot.alex@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 5:36 PM, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 2010, at 6:59 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Eli Morris-Heft
>> <eli.morris.heft@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Would it be unacceptable to just say that, when using #rrggbbaa notation,
>>> the aa part maps 0x00-0xFF directly onto 0.0 - 1.0 (that is, take the aa
>>> value, convert it to decimal, and divide by 255), and if an author needs to
>>> specify a color with /exactly/ 0.5 opacity (or another float that is not
>>> represented exactly by one of the 256 values 0x00-0xFF) for some reason, he
>>> or she just has to use rgba() (or hsla()) notation? I think that most
>>> authors using (or rather, who would use) #rrggbbaa notation, and I am among
>>> this company, would be just fine with 0x80 representing 0.50196...
>> That's what I'd prefer.  Just dividing the value by 255 is the sane
>> way to handle it, and the fact that you can't specify exactly .5 is
>> pretty irrelevant.
>> I'm just saying that our current webkit code is sorta crazy.
> If that's the craziest thing you've seen in the code so far, then you're in for some nasty shocks down the road. ;)

Let me maintain my innocence a while longer, please?  ^_^

Received on Wednesday, 19 May 2010 01:08:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:46 UTC