Re: [css-color] Have you considered standardizing a rgba(#RRGGBB, <alpha-value>) notation?

On May 10, 2013, at 11:11 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <> wrote:

> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Brad Kemper <> wrote:
>> On May 9, 2013, at 3:05 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <> wrote:
>>>> Instead of having different functions for color effects like changing the
>>>> brightness like Lea said earlier, the color() function could also do this:
>>>> color(#ff4500, saturation - 20%);
>>>> color(orangered, luminance 50%);
>>>> Not sure if this approach is better than having different functions, though.
>>> Yes, this is my preferred solution now.
>> I don't get it. If you have to include the color inside the that you are going to modify, that is a considerable shortcoming.
> The big win for the syntax I'm running with is that it lets you
> manipulate colors stored in variables, generating a bunch more colors
> off of it.

Yeah, but I think it should be more usable without having to rely on variables. 

>> I'd much rather have it as this:
>> color: #ff4500; color-adjust(saturation - 20%);
>> background-color: orangered; color-adjust(luminance 50%, background-color, box-shadow, border-color);
>> This way, I don't have to know the base color(s) in order to adjust a whole bunch of them. I could lighten all the elements of a certain class, make a whole bunch of things have translucent backgrounds, etc. without picking each color separately.
> I don't understand what syntax you're suggesting.  You're putting a
> function after the semicolon - is that supposed to be a property?

Yeah, sorry. I made a boo boo. 

> Something else?
> I can see the potential for a property that adjusts the computed-value
> of other color properties in this way.  Call it 'color-adjust', have
> its value be a number of property names and color-adjusters like what
> color() has, in a comma-separated list.
> ~TJ

Received on Friday, 10 May 2013 19:19:02 UTC