- From: Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 09:54:31 +0200
- To: www-svg@w3.org
- CC: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Tantek Çelik wrote: >>Defining new color >>keywords seems likely to produce the longest possible discussion. >> > Agreed. And, as I've noted, not only are the proposals for new color > keywords not fully defined / thought out / demonstrated (e.g. color gamut > distribution/coverage undefined as pointed out by Chris Lilley), but there > are clients of CSS3 Color that are waiting for it to become a CR, and a few > folks asking for new color names are an insufficient reason to delay. > > I propose that those with new color name proposals go back and read all the > criticisms offered by Chris Lilley and Steven Pemberton on color naming > schemes in general, and make sure your proposal addresses all their > questions. > Post your proposal on a website and send the URL to www-style > NOW so that we can discuss it in the working group(s) and possibly include > it in the next version of CSS3 color. I think it is very appropriate for users of W3C specs to describe needs and ideas, an W3C lists, and to suggest features, without being required to solve any of the specification or implementation problems (since you didn't provide any URLs I can not know of which nature the criticisms are), and without being required to put the solutions on a website, "NOW", and "fully defined / thought out / demonstrated". You also want to rush to CR status, because the implementers are waiting. In both cases I suggest to instead listen to the users of the specs; Even if they are what you call '"armchair quarterback" non-experts'. Tobi -- http://www.pinkjuice.com/
Received on Friday, 31 May 2002 03:56:32 UTC