All true, however, if CSS3 is adopted as quickly as CSS2, we will have a while to wait before IE (and thus 90+ percent of the market) properly supports it. However, to support it in the interim, we have a different option:
- Require that the color-tools gem be installed (if you haven't seen this, check it out!) - Add parsing for namespaced arbitrary function invocation, as Nathan mentioned in an earlier part of this thread Nathan: It looks like by adding function evaluation as the first- order operation in constant.rb you could do this, but you're a smarter programmer than I am, so you'd have a better take on how to implement. The method_missing part you suggested where any unrecognized function is turned into a string is also appealing. Steve On Jun 18, 2007, at 4:58 PM, Matt Lyon wrote: > > hsl is however a part of the css3 spec, so sooner or (probably) later > we'll actually get to use it in the real world. > > As someone whose background is in the visual arts and not computer > programming, i must say that hsl is generally the easiest color system > for me to produce results I am happy with. I find the 'interface' is > much more intuitive, the results more predictable. How would you go > about desaturating a color in RGB? Figuring a triadic color > complement? > > On 6/18/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Correct me if im wrong,but doesnt adding an equal amount of RGB make >> the colour brighter? eg. >> :background-color = !base_color + #151515 >> or >> :background-color = !base_color + #323232 >> >> On Jun 17, 12:27 am, rebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Just want to say thanks for taking this suggestion seriously, >>> i think its an excellent opportunity to extend the abilities of css >>> but at the same time allowing it to work in all browsers. >>> >>> On Jun 15, 4:50 am, Nathan Weizenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> There are several reasons for keeping functions out of normal >>>> CSS. The >>>> first is that it becomes much, much easier to parse; we don't >>>> have to >>>> think about the content of the attributes at all. This is a good >>>> thing. >>>> A slightly less Nathan-is-lazy reason is that CSS3 defines a lot >>>> more >>>> function-like things, including stuff like hsl, and I don't want to >>>> interfere with that at all. >>> >>>> - Nathan >>> >>>> s.ross wrote: >>>>> I think you're right about the undefined functions evaluating >>>>> to CSS. >>>>> That seems like a cool way to treat it. Also, would it be >>>>> desirable to >>>>> use the quoted form to explicitly coerce something into CSS? >>> >>>>> Is there a particular reason not to allow functions as an >>>>> attribute? I >>>>> certainly prefer specifying colors as constants in a block at >>>>> the top >>>>> of my Sass, but a CSS person might expect that functions would be >>>>> available in that context. >>> >>>>> Steve >> >> >>> >> > > > Steve Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.calicowebdev.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Haml" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
