- From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 22:41:52 +1000
- To: Antony Kennedy <antony@silversquid.com>
- CC: Markus Bruch <macinfo@arcor.de>, CSS 3 W3C Group <www-style@w3.org>
On 2/08/2011 10:23 PM, Antony Kennedy wrote: > On 2 Aug 2011, at 11:54, Alan Gresley wrote: >> Possibly but it would be not rgb() anymore. You would want >> grayscale() but this is counter to saving bandwidth. Possibly gs() >> with a range of '0' to '255'. I presume you are thinking of using >> this on handheld devices. > > I'm not sure why it wouldn't be rgb(). rgb(100) would be the same as > rgb(100,100,100) – it would still have values for all three channels. > gs() or gray() both offer more clarity, though. Yes, for handheld > devices or just as a best practise, for reducing bandwidth and file > sizes. > > AK It would have to be gs() or gray() for forward compatibility since rgb(100) or something similar has to throw a parsing error since it is an invalid value in rgb(). -- Alan Gresley http://css-3d.org/ http://css-class.com/
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 12:42:29 UTC