- From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 09:44:51 +1000
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Markus Bruch <macinfo@arcor.de>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 3/08/2011 6:22 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > 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 I totally agree with Tab here regarding a 2-hexadigit variant. The expansion rule is different and could be confusing to authors if any method was spec'd. I'm also against having a 4-hexadigit as a shortcut for 8-hexadigit (last two digits for alpha). -- Alan Gresley http://css-3d.org/ http://css-class.com/
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 23:45:32 UTC