- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 17:37:30 -0700
- 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? ^_^ ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 19 May 2010 01:08:57 UTC