On Friday, September 10, 2010, 3:45:30 PM, Christoph wrote:
CP> I think it’s ‘lightgoldenrod’, not ‘lightgoldenrodyellow’.
The values in CSS3 color are taken from SVG 1.0, which has ‘lightgoldenrodyellow’ as rgb(250, 250, 210)
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-SVG11-20030114/types.html#ColorKeywords
The values found on various platforms in /usr/lib/X11/rgb.txt (and similar locations for Sun, for X11R6 and so on) are not consistent, but here is one table which has the same value
250 250 210 LightGoldenrodYellow
and also has a different color with a different value
238 221 130 LightGoldenrod
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/projects/poplog/freebsd/new/rgb.txt
similarly in
http://www.thomas-guettler.de/rgb.txt.html
light goldenrod 238 221 130 #eedd82
light goldenrod yellow 250 250 210 #fafad2
and in
http://le.org/vault/colors.html
The name, and the value, given in css3 color for lightgoldenrodyellow of rgb(250, 250, 210) therefore is correct.
I did some quick tests and the handling of ‘lightgoldenrod’ in HTML/CSS and in SVG implementations is not consistent. Some treat it as an error, and thus show black. Some error-correct as if ‘lightgoldenrodyellow’ had been specified, so the two values give the same colour. And some treat it as an additional, distinct, keyword which produces the rgb(238 221 130) value.
The handling of the standard value ‘lightgoldenrodyellow’ was however consistent in all the implementations I tried.
I therefore propose to make no change to the CSS3 color specification. Please let us know if this resolution is acceptable.
--
Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain
W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead
Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
