W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2015

Re: [cssom] Serializing non-opaque colors, background-position keywords

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2015 11:05:49 +0100
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <op.xtombzv0idj3kv@simons-mbp>
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 20:15:55 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>  

>> Possibly the spec could have different strategies depending on how it's
>> stored, and not tie it to rgba() vs. opacity.
> I don't think the difference between representing 256 and 1001 values
> is significant.  I'm fine with the algorithm popping out slightly
> different results.  Or else we can specify that <alphavalue> is
> converted to a byte for the purpose of serializing, if we really want
> to be identical.
> Letting opacity go to 6 digits just because it's capable of accurately
> representing that many doesn't seem very useful.  That much precision
> is never useful in the first place; you can only barely tell the
> difference between .01 increments, let alone .001 increments.
> But this also isn't very important, and so matching IE/Gecko is fine.

OK. I agree that it's not particularly useful, but it might be relevant  
for other things in CSS to use more than 3 digits. I've made the spec  
match Boris' description (hopefully) when <alphavalue> is internally  
represented as an 8-bit unsigned integer, and otherwise go through  
<number> serialization and limit that to 6 decimals. The spec didn't allow  
sci-not previously and I've still not allowed it, since it exposes  
float->double rounding errors and will not parse in legacy implementations.


Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Saturday, 7 February 2015 10:06:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:51 UTC