- From: Antony Kennedy <antony@silversquid.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 13:40:01 +0100
- To: Markus Bruch <macinfo@arcor.de>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Exactly right.
And I still think the savings are worth it.
On 3 Aug 2011, at 16:29, Markus Bruch wrote:
>
> Am 02.08.2011 um 11:32 schrieb Antony Kennedy:
>
>> I like this idea. To extend it to 255 shades of grey you could also use two characters, like #ac.
>
> Ah great idea, I didn't think of that!
>
> If I understand it right you intend it to work like this:
>
>
> .gray { color: #acacac; } --> .gray { color: #ac }
>
>
> (Just store one of the 3 equal rgb-channnel bytes; at rendering put this one value back in any of the r-, g- and b-channels.)
>
> This addition would round the idea off nicely to render either 16-shade or 256-shade gray color.
>
>
>
>>
>> Could a similar implementation be used with RGB()? Although easier to read, it is a more verbose format.
>>
>> A
>>
>> On 31 Jul 2011, at 12:34, Markus Bruch wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, I'm new to this list, so please forgive if this topic has been
>>> talked about before.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose to further shorten the css hex color notation.
>>>
>>> Known notation:
>>>
>>> .orange { color: #ff6600; }
>>>
>>> to:
>>>
>>> .orange { color: #f60; }
>>>
>>> I would suggest that for a specific set of 16 grayscale shades,
>>> to reduce the rgb-values to one single character:
>>>
>>> .gray { color: #ccc; }
>>>
>>> to:
>>>
>>> .gray { color: #c; }
>>>
>>> In addition to it's only marginal bandwith or space saving it
>>> would have the benefit of being concise and easily visible to
>>> the reader, that this code assigns a grayscale color (from a
>>> set of 16 shades, #0 - #f).
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Markus Bruch
>>>
>>> --
>>> macinfo@arcor.de
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2011 12:40:35 UTC