- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:26:39 +0200
- To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
* Brian Manthos wrote: >Abandoning compatibility because you prefer using rgba() across the >board seems counter to that goal -- in the form of compatibility with >existing content and implementations. I made a point about what should guide the design of this features based on the design goals I am aware of and gave an example to illustrate what that might mean in practise. How some existing constructs are serialized is the result of various ad-hoc decisions rather than deliberate design, and it may well be that legacy behavior is retained even though it's not consistent with rules formulated for serializing new constructs, so I've added that as a caveat to my example. I did not suggest to abandon com- patibility and I did not say I prefer using `rgba` for all RGB colours. How serialization should be defined should be a matter of what problems are to be solved. If the problem is "I have stringified color values and need to extract the components" then representing all RGB colours using the `rgba` notation is likely best; if the problem is "I need to retain as many of the syntactical choices as possible", then it's better to represent "blue" in many different forms depending on the input. In any case, you would be looking at actual problems and how well they are being solved by some proposal. You would not look at "terse vs verbose". -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Tuesday, 19 July 2011 09:26:46 UTC