On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Thomas Davie <[email protected]> wrote: > I can see the argument for not specifying the values as floats – css doesn't > allow it. The reason I chose floats was that for beginners (and potentially > cartographers too) it's much more natural to think in terms of percentages or > fractions of 1, than to think in terms of fractions of 255. Using 0 to 255 > feels to me like we're leaking implementation details and exposing something > programmers are familiar with to cartographers.
If switch from base-16 to base-10, wouldn't 0-100 be a nicer range than 0-1? But seriously...do we really want to be inventing a colour format? > A random aside: when we come to using 10 or 12 bit colour, what happens to > using 0-255? Floats support this naturally. Do you think it's likely? I was actually thinking that 8 bit was overkill, but then I'm thinking of a Flash editor. Maybe for beautiful wall prints it does matter. Ok, actually that leads to a more compelling argument: the #abcdef format does sort of trap MapCSS within the website world, whereas it has every right to be used for print maps that have never seen a browser. (But then, allowing both #abcdef and rgb(35.672,99.99,0) achieves that...) Steve _______________________________________________ Mapcss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/mapcss
