From: william.lachance@sympatico.ca
Date: Sun Mar 16 2003 - 23:00:45 EST
> On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, F J Franklin wrote:
>
> > I don't know who added "ffffff" and "transparent" to the list of named
> > colors (which I spent ages copying out from the SVG standard), or why, but
> > if there's a reason can whoever please find a different solution to their
> > problem.
> >
> > Also, UT_parseColor was equateing "ffffff" with "transparent" - which
> > seemed a little daft to me. ffffff is white, not transparent. After all,
> > what happens if the page background isn't white?
> >
> > o remove "ffffff" and "transparent" from list of named colors
> > o don't equate "ffffff" with "transparent"
>
> That was me. I put them in there for backwards compatibility. If a
> property of color is found with the name "transperent" then the background
> color is not drawn. This is very useful for "highlighting" colors.
>
> The re now exist many documents in the wild with "transperent" and
> "ffffff" in them. We have to continue to support them.
Couldn't we handle this problem at the filter level? Seems far more sensible to me than polluting the mainline of the codebase with these special cases..
Cheers,
William Lachance
william.lachance@sympatico.ca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Mar 16 2003 - 23:08:12 EST