- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:19:37 -0700
- To: Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Lea Verou <lea@verou.me>
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net> wrote: >>> 2. CSS is tied more closely to RGB than CMYK >>> >>> If there was black(x) I'd expect it to be a shorthand for cmyk(0,0,0,x), but >>> use of actual CMYK colors in CSS can be a can of worms (it should be subject >>> to color profiles, but then black(0) may be different than rgb(0,0,0)). >>> >>> However in the RGB world white(x) can be simply explained as rgb(255*x, >>> 255*x, 255*x), but the same doesn't make sense for black: rgb(0*x, 0*x, >>> 0*x). >> >> Black is just (100% - x) for each component. > > Well, of course it is. My point was that because of the inversion the formula for black->rgb isn't as simple and elegant as for white->rgb. Okay. I don't think the conversion formula is very relevant here, though; the intuitiveness is based more on the name than how direct the translation is. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2014 22:20:24 UTC