On 26 Jun 2014, at 22:37, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Mathias Bynens <mathi...@opera.com> wrote:
>> On 26 Jun 2014, at 22:24, Mathias Bynens <mathi...@opera.com> wrote:
>>> Interesting to see this would be only the second HTML attribute value to 
>>> get parsed as a simple color 
>>> (http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/common-microsyntaxes.html#simple-color)
>>>  rather than a legacy color (the other one being `<input type=color 
>>> value=foo>`).
>> Actually, the way it’s currently specced it wouldn’t be a parsed as a simple 
>> color value nor as a legacy color value. It should probably be one or the 
>> other (rather than introducing a third, new way to parse color values). 
>> https://github.com/whatwg/meta-brand-color/issues/1
> Well, the third way is "as CSS", which already exists in the platform.

Parsing a legacy color value is also “as CSS”, with some extra fallback logic 
in case that fails (which is currently undefined in the `brand-color` spec), 
and this logic is already used for the majority of HTML attributes that 
represent a color value.

Reply via email to