- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:44:09 -0700
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:33 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > On Wednesday 2013-04-03 14:47 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> I just drafted up a CSS Color 4 draft. It's only a few changes from level 3: >> >> * rgb() and rgba() functions now accept <number> rather than <integer>. >> * hsl() and hsla() functions now accept <angle> as well as <number> for hues. >> * All uses of <alpha-value> now accept <percentage> as well as <number>. >> * 4 and 8-digit hex colors have been added, to specify transparency. > > So syntax expansions have a cost in compatibility and confusion: > when authors don't realize which is the newer syntax and which is > the older syntax, they'll inadvertently create content that doesn't > work in older browsers, and potentially spend time debugging that. > Language syntaxes don't, in general, allow any syntax that an author > might think of. > > If the initial syntax draft had allowed multiple options I think > that would have been different, but I'm really not convinced that > it's worth the churn of expanding the syntax, even if these options > might have been better choices if we were starting over. At minimum, I think the rgb() <integer>-to-<number> switchover and 4/8-digit hex colors are necessary syntax additions. The former fixes a common authoring error when using JS (which I've done myself almost every time I mess around with colors in <canvas>), while the latter is a long-standing author request. The other two are indeed just syntax niceties (the way those syntaxes *should* have been written originally, imo), which I'd be okay with dropping, but I'd still like to keep them. ^_^ ~TJ
Received on Monday, 8 April 2013 16:44:59 UTC