W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2011

Re: [css] Proposal: making Shorthand Hex Colors even shorter (16 grayscale shades)

From: Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 02:42:31 +0400
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <198971315262551@web73.yandex.ru>
My message _is_ reply to latest thread by Markus Bruch (consider subject). I've just recently joined to www-style, so cannot to reply directly to thread-starting message by Markus.

06.09.2011, 02:34, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru> wrote:
>> šRecently, when I (once again) was typing redundant #ccc, #666, #999, etc., I've arrived at the same idea: it would be nice to be able to use #c, #6, #9 shortcuts.
>> šReplacing #acacac with #ac looks quite nice and reasonable too. There is nothing wrong with #ac compared with #c as well as with existing #ccc.
>> šSuch shortcuts are not more consusing than existing #ccc, #666, #999, etc.
>> šAs for similar additions to rgba (that has been mentioned in the thread), I personally almost don't care about this since I consider rgba paradigm itself just wrong and almost useless as for CSS:
>> šinstead of rgba(), it would be _much_ more useful to have background-opacity property that would control opacity of _entire_ background including background color _and_ image together. Those interested may see proposal in sibling thread I've started a moment ago:
>> šhttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Sep/0033.html
> There have been multiple threads talking about 1- or 2-digit hex
> shorthands. šOne of them was even posted to today or yesterday. šI
> suggest a search of the archives (at lists.w3.org - use Google with
> that url) to catch up on the current discussion and/or find the
> previous thread to reply on.
> ~TJ
Received on Monday, 5 September 2011 22:43:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:04 UTC