Spartanicus wrote:
[color=blue]
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:[color=green]
>> The underline character in identifiers has been added in CSS 2.1.[/color]
>
> It is considered an error in the CSS 2.0 spec corrected in the errata:
>
http://www.w3.org/Style/css2-updates...12-errata.html[/color]
The CSS2 errata are outdated which you would have known if you had read:
| This document is currently not maintained. The CSS working group is
| developing CSS 2.1. When features common to CSS2 and CSS 2.1 are defined
| differently, please consider the definition in CSS 2.1 as errata for CSS2.
| While CSS 2.1 is still a Working Draft, the errata are to be considered
| proposed errata.
Well, CSS 2.1, which (as I well wrote!) includes the underline character
in class names, is still (again) a Working Draft, so its contents can
only be considered proposed errata. It's not a Specification, CSS2 is.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Interestingly, it has been removed again in CSS3 (Syntax).[/color]
>
> It hasn't:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-css3-sy...13/#characters[/color]
,-<http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-css3-syntax-20030813/#grammar0>
|
| class
| : '.' IDENT
| ;
| [...]
| nmstart [a-z]|{nonascii}|{escape}
| nmchar [a-z0-9-]|{nonascii}|{escape}
| ident [-]?{nmstart}{nmchar}*
But, as you can read there, if you are able and willing to do so:
| This document is a draft of one of the modules of CSS Level 3 (CSS3).
| Some parts of the document are derived from the CSS Level 1 and CSS Level
| 2 recommendations, and those parts are thus relatively stable. However,
| it is otherwise an early draft, and considerable revision is expected in
| later drafts, especially in formalization of error handling behavior, the
| conformance requirements for partial implementations (given the
| modularization of CSS3), and integration with other CSS3 modules.
| [...]
| This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by
| other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| other than work in progress. Its publication does not imply endorsement by
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| the W3C membership or the CSS & FP Working Group (members only).
I did not cite it as if it were a Specification, you did.
[color=blue]
> Even if it were, there is no version sniffing in CSS, thus the backward
> compatibility requirement means that UAs must continue to support it.[/color]
CSS2.1 and CSS3 are not even Recommendations (read: Specifications) and
you are talking about backwards compatibility to them. You made my day.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> However,neither has achieved the status of Recommendation yet, so
>> it seems to be good practice to not use the underline character.[/color]
>
> The only possible reasons to avoid it is that a few obsolete browsers do
> not support it, and it must not be used as the first character of a
> class name.[/color]
Wrong. There is not one good reason to use it. There
is one good reason to not use it: the Specification.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> color: #000000;[/color]
>> Besides, the value should be independent on color depth: #000[/color]
>
> For this particular value #000 resolves to #000000, there is no
> difference.[/color]
Wrong.
,-<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/syndata.html#color-units>
|
| The three-digit RGB notation (#rgb) is converted into six-digit form
| (#rrggbb) by replicating digits, not by adding zeros. For example, #fb0
| expands to #ffbb00. This ensures that white (#ffffff) can be specified
| with the short notation (#fff) and removes any dependencies on the color
| depth of the display.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> background-color: #ffdd77;[/color]
>>
>> This requires a color depth of at least 65536 (64k) to be properly
>> displayed[/color]
>
> A browser with a lesser colour capability gamma corrects such a value to
> a supported value.[/color]
Which is the problem regarding legibility of text displayed on such
a background color: dithering may occur. Besides, it is not the
featurelessness of the browser (read: user agent) that introduces
the problem but that of the display device, as I already mentioned.
[color=blue]
> The only scenario where it could conceivably result in difficulties is
> when an author codes foreground and background values of insufficient
> contrast.[/color]
No, it is not.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> (and, therefore, serve as background for legible text). Try to stick to
>> Real Websafe[tm] color values using[/color]
>
> This is antiquated advice,[/color]
It is not.
[color=blue]
> very few devices only support "web safe" colours,[/color]
Real Websafe[tm] colors are different from the former Websafe Colors
in the respect that they are also independent of color depth, adhering
to CSS2, section 4.3.6. They have proven to provide the best contrast
and be subject to the least gamma correction, as you call it, on a
number of platforms and devices.
[color=blue]
> those that do for example also cannot handle jpegs properly,
> not something to care about.[/color]
Obviously you have too less experience in both today's Web display
devices and CSS to comment on that.
[color=blue]
> Furthermore, dedicated devices that only support "web safe" colours
> are unlikely to support CSS in the first place.[/color]
Rubbish.
And in contrast to my followup, which at least partly dealt
with matters of JS, yours does not even belong here in cljs.
PointedEars, X-Post & Followup-To comp.infosystems.
www.authoring.stylesheets 
