RE: [SPAM] RE: [dita] Updated feature 20

The term code is needs to be defined. 

 

Would anyone object to: “Colors may
be entered by name or code as in HTML 3.2” 

 

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32.html#colors

 

That describes both the syntax and the
list of colors in a single reference.

 

From: Michael
Priestley [mailto:] 

Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 10:54
AM

To: Grosso, Paul

Cc: ;
Esrig, Bruce (Bruce); Paul Prescod; Robert D Anderson; Su-Laine Yeo

Subject: [SPAM] RE: [dita] Updated
feature 20

Importance: Low

 

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.