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

Re: [css4-color] @color Custom Color Keywords

From: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 23:44:48 +0200
Message-Id: <0EBE7132-4233-4D3B-8A4B-6C2633B83F55@crissov.de>
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr.:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 3:33 AM, Christoph Päper
>> Tab Atkins Jr.:
>> [Color scoping] is inspired by ‘@page’ which can differ for odd and even
> @page is a separate processing construct …

Yes. I said “inspired by”, not “copied from”.

>>> I think this should just be addressed via a general Variables mechanism.
>> General variables cannot offer the fallback mechanism colors could do. Backwards compatibility is a major concern here.
> Can you elaborate?  What's the backwards-compat concern?  

  color: var(darkred); /* or some such */

will fail (and authors *will* forget or refuse to provide a fallback).

  color: darkred;

on the other hand will work even in most CSS1 browsers (because they supported the stupid X11 names before SVG or CSS did). Now mix foreground and background color and you will much easier get unreadable text with a generic variable mechanism (which cannot use mere keywords).

Of course,

  color: var(CIred);


  color: CIred;

will both fail in current UAs.

> I said above that I don't believe colors will be extended much, so fallback isn't much of a concern.

What do you mean by “extend”?

>> John Daggett today effectively proposed variables for font-specific features
> Like @font-face, it's defining higher-level objects that then interact with CSS, not just a substitution.

So, how are colors not “higher-level objects” (if they supported scoping as proposed)?
Received on Sunday, 19 September 2010 21:45:23 UTC

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