- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 13:22:51 -0700
- To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Markus Bruch <macinfo@arcor.de>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote: > Tab: >> I am strongly opposed to a 2-[hexa]digit variant, because it has a different expansion rule than the 3-digit hex that already exists. > > Doesn't the 1-hexadigit representation have the same concern (different expansion rule than 3-digit hex)? Not really. The 3-digit hex works by duplicating each digit in-place. The 1-digit hex would sextuple the single digit in-place. (One could also argue that 1-digit hex uses the same expansion rule as 2-digit hex, and one would be right. It's a degenerate case.) 2-digit hex, if it used the same expansion rule, would expand #12 into #111222 (which is obviously useless). ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 20:23:46 UTC