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

Re: [css4-color] #RGBA

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:36:31 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikPZyZCEcqCg-m8sHqR-k2OMfKByx9tQhySdOZ7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Cc: Eduard Pascual <herenvardo@gmail.com>, Patrick Garies <w3c.www-style@patrick.garies.name>, "mollyh@opera.com" <mollyh@opera.com>, Christoph P├Ąper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I don't have the link (and didn't see it in the original mail), but I'm referring to the extension of adding the #rrggbbaa syntax (CSS4) *not* the extension of adding rgba (CSS3).
> If you add a "non-functional" syntax to RGB, and don't add it to HSL that suggests that HSL isn't worthy of spending the time to provide a tight non-functional syntax so that it has parity with RGB.
> So with the CSS4 change, RGB is now two steps ahead of HSL -- it has rgb(), rgba(), #rrggbb, and #rrggbbaa whereas HSL only has hsl() and hsla().

#rgba is nothing more than a completion of #rgb.  It's not a separate
new feature.  It's just us maintaining feature parity between the

As well, this isn't a race.  There are three color syntaxes.  The fact
that two of them happen to refer to the same color-space is
irrelevant.  #rgb syntax doesn't exist because it's necessary, it
exists because it's very familiar to coders and was already used in
HTML.  Inventing a brand new terse syntax for HSL has no such benefit.

There is no reason to spend time and effort trying to invent a totally
new terse syntax for HSL just to maintain the theoretical purity of
all color-spaces having similar options.

Received on Friday, 10 September 2010 19:37:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:49:47 UTC