You're right, I was responding only to the "what color
names" part.
As far as color code syntax, my previous (and current)
suggestion is to
accept only the #rrggbb syntax (case insensitive) aka
"6 digit hex codes"
aka the HTML 3.2 model.
It's true that the XSL spec is a bit unclear here, but
at
http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl/slice5.html#section-N7618-Colors
it says that "RGB colors are directly represented
in the expression language
using
a hexadecimal notation" and all XSL implementations of which I
am
aware do support the #rrggbb syntax as does CSS,
and it is the most common
one used in practice.
So I suggest we use the 16 color names.
I don't care if we list them or we
reference HTML, XSL, or CSS 1, as long as we don't put
specific RGB values
for them. And I suggest we say that a color can
also be represented using
the 6 digit hex code (#rrggbb, case insensitive)
form.
paul
From: Paul Prescod
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, 2006 May 23
09:27
To: Grosso, Paul; Michael Priestley
Cc:
; Esrig, Bruce (Bruce); Robert D Anderson; Su-Laine
Yeo
Subject: RE: [dita] Updated feature 20
It is still not clear
what we mean when we say that we are going to “use” the XSL reference. Will we
or won’t we support XSL’s three color-function
syntaxes?
http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl/slice5.html#expr-color-functions
In addition, I don’t
believe that XSL has a notion of the # hexhexhex syntax. So if we want that,
we aren’t really using XSL syntax, though we might be using XSL color
names.
CSS 1 allows
basically five syntaxes. Color names, 3-digit hex codes, 6 digit hex codes,
rgb absolute, rgb percentage.
It seems like what we
have been informally describing is actually the HTML 3.2 color
model:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32.html
Are there any known
problems with that model that would prevent us from using it?
From: Grosso,
Paul [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 10:01
AM
To: Michael Priestley;
Paul Prescod
Cc:
; Esrig, Bruce (Bruce); Paul Prescod; Robert D
Anderson; Su-Laine Yeo
Subject: RE: [dita] Updated feature
20
Yes, I agree with the
XSL (not XSLT) reference.
CSS3 is not yet a
Recommendation, and interoperable support is
only guaranteed for
those referenced by XSL and the HTML DTD.
paul
From:
Michael Priestley [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, 2006 May 22
22:37
To: Paul
Prescod
Cc:
; Esrig, Bruce (Bruce); Paul Prescod; Robert D
Anderson; Su-Laine Yeo
Subject: [dita] Updated feature
20
>
> We proposed to take out the list of colour names in
the
> specification. They
could be included by reference as suggested by
> Paul Grosso.
>
> On
the other hand, the link to the XSLT specification implies that
> DITAVAL processors should
support the syntaxes defined here:
>
>
http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl/slice5.html#expr-color-functions
>
> We
should be explicit about what syntaxes we support. I personally
> would like to know whether
XSL will synchronize with SVG and CSS as
> defined here:
>
>
http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#svg-color
>
>
Somehow we need a clear definition of what syntax the attribute
> supports. It doesn't
matter much what the syntax is.
I don't have a
decision here. In the absence of input, I am picking the existing XSLT
reference because the list of colors is
shorter.
