- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 13:14:42 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Patrick Dark <www-style.at.w3.org@patrick.dark.name>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 08/18/2014 07:57 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Patrick Dark > <www-style.at.w3.org@patrick.dark.name> wrote: >> I would suggest scrapping the gray() notation and replacing it with the >> following: >> >> • hsl(<lightness>) where hue = 0deg and saturation = 0% >> • hsla(<lightness>, <alpha>) where hue = 0deg and saturation = 0% >> >> These notations have the following authoring advantages over the gray() >> notation: >> • Hue and saturation can be added without replacing or removing parts of a >> preexisting value; only additions are required. >> • Hue and saturation can be removed by simply deleting preexisting values. > > We just did a poll of authors, actually, and got the result that rgb() > with a single value (or rgba() with two values, for gray and alpha) is > strongly preferred by authors. > > Since percentages are allowed, this is precisely the same syntax that > you proposed, just with a different function name. You can also use > numbers 0-255 if you prefer, though. (It also has a slight learning > advantage, I think. Removing from the front is slightly less intuitive > than removing from the back, and repeating the provided argument for > the missing ones is easy to understand as well.) Yes, but if we're providing this shorthand in rgb notation, it makes a fair bit of sense to also allow it for hsl notation. ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 18 August 2014 20:15:11 UTC