- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:33:18 -0800
- To: Chris Nager <cnager@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Chris Nager <cnager@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Markus, > I completely agree. I sent a tweet out about this a while back: > https://twitter.com/#!/ChrisNager/status/83651049558253568 > @ChrisNager: > "As far as color hexcodes go in #css, I've always thought if #0cf works for > #00ccff, shouldn't #f work for #ffffff and #a1 work for #a1a1a1?" As I argued in the thread that you are responding to (starting at <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Aug/0037.html>), there's not much benefit to allowing these. The 2-digit hex syntax saves 1 or 4 characters (depending on whether the two digits are the same), and since the saved characters are just repetition, it's worth even less than that. The 1-digit hex syntax saves 2 character, and again the savings are pure repetition. This is an extremely minimal benefit. Neither of these play well with the plans to add alpha to the 3- and 6-digit hex syntaxes. I argued in the thread that there may be sufficient value in adding a gray() function which accepts a number or percentage, like rgb(), because the characters savings is greater there. As well, it can handle alpha better, as a second parameter. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 1 December 2011 18:34:09 UTC