- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:36:48 +0200
- To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Hello Simon, Wednesday, September 25, 2013, 4:17:14 PM, you wrote: > Hi, > The current ED has a section named "RGB Colors: the <color> type", and > following sections that define other color values like hsl(). This split > seems to imply that only RGB colors are <color>, the other values would > be something else. I agree that is misleading. Its not actually incorrect, since HSL is a reformulation of RGB. But I agree that the spec should distinguish between syntactic forms and semantic components. In particular, hsl values are a valid <color> type. Also, as we will be adding other ways of specifying colours, it needs to be clear which are <color> and which are something else. Particularly as some of them include <color> as one part (for a fallback, for example). > It would be preferable to have a section that defines <color> as an > explicit grammar, and have the various values (RGB, HSL, etc.) be > sub-sections. Agreed. -- Best regards, Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2013 14:36:54 UTC