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

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

From: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 11:15:41 +0200
Message-Id: <1C595615-8058-4819-AE78-56A48FD6CEE3@crissov.de>
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com>:
> On 19/6/14 16:04, Daniel Glazman wrote:
>> 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 [a deceased individual]

Future color values should be added by RGB percentage values (i.e. rgb(40%, 20%, 60%) in this case), so as not to further imply a restriction to 24 bits (without alpha). The table in current section 5 “Named Colors” of the CSS Color 4 draft should be changed accordingly, to only show one color sample and percentages prominently, cf. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X11_color_names#Color_name_charts> for instance.

I should note that combinations of 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% (00h, 33h, 66h, 99h, CCh, FFh) are quite popular (among hand coders without visual color pickers), but only some of them have been assigned a color keyword by X11/SVG and hence CSS. If this “proposal” is accepted it should serve as an example for future tombstones, i.e. if someone else was to be commemorated in the CSS specs it should also be done so by assigning a name to one of the colors possible to be encoded by these values. 

They’re unlikely to be actually used by web authors, though, because these colors aren’t popular due to their visually pleasantry, but their simple hex notation which can even be shortened, e.g. ‘#639’. There are also some half-point combinations left to be encoded, i.e. 0%, 50% and 100%, which like further quarter-points 25% and 75% don’t have nice hex values (00h, 3F|40h, 7F|80h, BF|C0h, FFh).

>> So this is a Call for Consensus on that proposal.

Please don’t send messages to public www-style if you – or at least Tab – don’t want comments by the non-member public. I’m a long-term contributor, though inactive lately, and didn’t know the exact meaning of the ‘[CfC]’ tag.

> Personally, I'm not really comfortable with this. While it may be a touching gesture, I don't think it's appropriate to enshrine a bit of personal sentimentality in a W3C technical standard.
> Nice thought, wrong place.

I totally agree with Jonathan Kew here.
Received on Friday, 20 June 2014 09:16:01 UTC

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