- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 13:49:50 -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 1:35 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 chimerical. > 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. ^_^ ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 20:50:37 UTC