- 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