On 7 Feb 2011, at 09:12, Thomas Davie wrote: > The css mailing list recently had a long discussion about hex codes and names > being a really ugly way of dealing with colours, and arguing that they should > be dropped in favour of rgb(r,g,b) and rgba(r,g,b,a) (along with potentially > other colour spaces for print for example). The conclusion was that there's > a lot of legacy css out there that this would break, and a lot of html/css > editors that would continue to produce broken code. Because of this, they > never changed the standard. We have a far smaller problem here – our > existing stylesheet base is much smaller, and hence perhaps have the chance > to nip the problem in the bud now. > > I propose that all colour specifications be replaced with the modern > specifiers. > > I also have a second proposal related to this. CSS typically uses the range > 0 to 255 even in these specifiers. I'd like to propose that we use the > cleaner 0.0 to 1.0 range. This has the advantage of not exposing an > implementation detail, though I acknowledge there's a disadvantage in > deviating from what css does here.
Appologies for following up my own mail. One further advantage of this proposal is that it cleans up the use of opacity: all over the place. If users want non-opaque items, they can simply use an rgba colour. If the colour is specified to multiply any image specified, then semi-transparent (or even colour variant) images are easily supported too. The use of 0.0 to 1.0 appears to be consistent with the existing semantics of opacity: properties. Thanks Tom 'Beelsebob' Davie _______________________________________________ Mapcss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/mapcss
