- From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 09:32:59 +0100
- To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- CC: Rick Bull <rick@rickbull.com>, www-validator-css@w3.org
Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > The morale? Well, don't use color names. They aren't a particularly good > idea anyway. Use a color picker to select the color you want (say, > _some_ orange color) and use the numeric value in some format allowed by > CSS syntax. Use "CSS Validator" or other linter to check that those > values are technically correctly written, among other things. I don't entirely agree with this, Jukka (the assertion that colour names are not a good idea, that is). Whilst I might have considerable reservations about suggesting the use of (say) background-color: soilent-green /* PANTONE 7488 */ I would have no similar reservations about the use of (say) background-color: blue That is, where the colour names refer to a simple primary colour, they seem completely unexceptionable to me (also "black" and "white", even though they are neither simple nor primary). But where the colour names refer to arbitrary points in the colour spectrum, then in the absence of a single universal mapping from RGB space to meaningful colour names, I agree that (at the moment [1]) the use of numeric constants is probably preferable. Philip TAYLOR -------- Of course, what I would really like is for CSS to provide the ability to bind colour names to RGB space, but I think that by now it is fairly universally agreed that the CSS model makes this extremely difficult to implement.
Received on Sunday, 17 May 2009 08:33:36 UTC