W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2011

Re: [css] Proposal: making Shorthand Hex Colors even shorter (16 grayscale shades)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 13:49:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAOaf1P2jiprDZundm618H5CDj=V4DTK_pQxH0XTcbEcw@mail.gmail.com>
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 1:35 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote:
> /confused
> Let's see if I can get this straight.
> You're opposed to 2 digit expansion because it follows a different pattern.
> But you're ok with 1 digit expansion which is a degenerate flavor of 2 digit expansion's pattern.

No.  1-digit expansion can legitimately be explained as *either* using
the same pattern as 2-digit expansion *or* 3-digit expansion.  It's a
degenerate case, and like all degenerate cases, is somewhat

> What should 4 digit expansion do?  Should it expand characters in both ways (same channel and across channels)?  I think we can agree on a strong "No!" at such chaos.

Holy jeezus no.

> What I *would* like to see considered is using 4 digit and 8 digit syntax as an alternative to rgba().  Supporting any flavor of 1, 2, 4, or 5 digit syntax *before* addressing support for RGBA seems like a paint-your-self-in-a-corner exercise.

I have a patch for Webkit that's been pending for the last year on
Colors 4 introducing that syntax (Hyatt won't let me introduce it
until it's in a spec *somewhere*).  Once someone has editting time to
actually write it, I can drop it right in, because it's a trivial
thing to add, as I'm sure you know.  ^_^

Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 20:50:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:03 UTC