Here's what's currently there:
>Colors may be entered by name or
code. Processor support is recommended for
>the colors listed in <xref href=""http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl/slice5.html#section-N8794-Property-Datatypes"
>scope="external"></xref>
Let me know if this needs to change,
and if so, provide the wording.
Michael Priestley
IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
"Grosso, Paul"
<>
05/23/2006 10:48 AM
To
"Paul Prescod"
<>, Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
cc
<>,
"Esrig, Bruce \(Bruce\)" <>, "Robert
D Anderson" <>, "Su-Laine Yeo"
<>
Subject
RE: [dita] Updated feature
20
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.
