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.
