W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2014

Re: [CfC] adding 'rebeccapurple' color to CSS Color Level 4

From: Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:28:02 -0400
To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <2b772f8c9f2329559c8f8e63b224964a@gtalbot.org>
Le 2014-06-19 13:57, Brian Kardell a écrit :
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>
> wrote:
>> Le 2014-06-19 12:46, Dave Cramer a écrit :
>>  On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Daniel Glazman <
>>> daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:
>>>  (co-chair hat on)
>>>> Following a proposal sent to social media, it is suggested
>>>> to add the named color 'rebeccapurple', for value #663399, to
>>>> CSS Color Level 4. This is a tribute to Eric Meyer's daughter
>>>> who recently passed away and a mark of support from all the
>>>> Web community to Eric. I requested to ping Eric to be absolutely
>>>> sure he is ok with this; he responded "he was honored by the 
>>>> gesture,
>>>> and would love to accept it".
>>>> Some implementors (Mozilla, Apple, Google and Microsoft) have 
>>>> already
>>>> said they will implement and ship the new value.
>>>> So this is a Call for Consensus on that proposal.
>>>>  Web standards are the creation of humans, and memorializing the 
>>>> dead
>>> may be
>>> one of the oldest human traits. In this extraordinary circumstance, I 
>>> say
>>> yes.
>>> Dave Cramer (member of the CSSWG, father of a six-year-old)
>> Dave,
>> Your explanation does not fit the context or/and the event.
>> Nothing prevents Eric Meyer from prefacing his next book or a 
>> re-edition
>> of any of his previous books from memorializing his loved daughter.
>> Every specification has an Acknowledgements section thanking the
>> contributors "for their input and feedback on the www-style mailing 
>> list,
>> have helped us with the creation of this specification".
>> Gérard Talbot
> Not to wade into endless debate, if you feel differently then respond 
> so

I have responded my disagreement and I have explained it a bit. Even 
giving a few alternatives.

I am not a stranger to mourning of loved ones by the way: I want to make 
that utterly clear.

> and we can agree to leave it there, but I'd like to propose a different 
> way
> of looking at this.  CSSWG writes a draft, it doesn't traditionally 
> invent
> color names - it plays the role of a dictionary editor in accepting the
> vernacular that the community accepts.  Current color names include 
> things
> named after people already, as well as colors named after all sorts of
> things that just pick up (cadet blue, for example).  Hundreds of 
> responses
> have poured in through all sorts of media from the community (that is,
> people who use CSS) in a series of a couple of days supporting the
> acceptance of this - more feedback than anything else in Web standards 
> that
> I have ever seen and it is overwhelmingly positive.

Lots of people who have contributed in an immense way to web standards 
adherence, compliance in the past or in the present. And they all will 
die one day. Then, what will happen?

Consider that there are property names and property values that already 
are not so intuitive, not really significative, not meaningful (not 
self-evident) right now.

CSS3 modules are already complex and their property names and property 
values are unavoidably bound to be misused, abused in the future; in 
fact, in many cases, they are already misused and abused. Don't you 
(CSSWG people) have enough already to review, to clarify and to rename 
as of right now?

Some parts of CSS3 modules development have illogical extensions, 
probably for historical reasons.

> As a dictionary
> editor, a few people not using words that are never the less part of 
> the
> common vernacular, does not prevent adoption... that's the norm.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying...

Personally, in my language, we use fruit names (eg orange) or flower 
names (eg rose) or nature objects (sky blue) to describe some colors and 
to name color names. We do not use names of people to identify colors.

> From an entirely dispassionate standpoint I still see no reason to 
> reject
> loud calls from the community because of their origin or intent.

You guys (CSSWG people) make that call. I have spoken up my 

Gérard Talbot
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2014 18:28:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:43 UTC