- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 20:16:17 -0700
- To: Patrick Garies <w3c.www-style@patrick.garies.name>
- Cc: mollyh@opera.com, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Patrick Garies <w3c.www-style@patrick.garies.name> wrote: > On 2010-09-06 1:38 PM, Molly E. Holzschlag wrote: >> >> So even if there were a way to shorthand HSL it doesn't make sense from >> a design standpoint to do so. It's a shorthand in and of itself. > > While I don’t think an |#RGB|‐ or |#RRGGBB|‐like syntax is a good idea for > HSL (as Brian apparently suggested), I can see a good reason from a “design > standpoint” to abbreviate the HSL syntax further. As someone who uses > all‐gray or nearly all‐gray palettes, I find it to be somewhat tedious and > messy to have to use |hsl(<H>, <S>, <L>)| when the first two arguments are > completely irrelevant. > > Something like |hsl(<L>)| or |l(<L>)| where the hue and saturation are > assumed to be zero (and which I’ve previously proposed as |rgb(<RGB>)| for > the same reasons) would make this easier. If you're using an all-gray palette, I don't think it's very taxing to say hsl(0,0%,<gray%>). Not as terse as possible, but pretty good. If we were to specifically address the use-case of "make creating gray colors as terse as possible", I'd just create a gray() function that took a percentage. That's much clearer than some single-argument version of rgb() or hsl(). ~TJ
Received on Friday, 10 September 2010 03:17:16 UTC