Name #663399 "Becca Purple" in CSS4 Color?


#101

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

+1 for BeccaPurple


#102

+1. I couldn’t agree more.


#103

100% yes. +1 for beccapurple


#104

Thanks for the clarification! I find it too easy to confuse spec with convention.


#105

Is there a reason people like mixing emotional responses with standards creation? Which other CSS colors are as unintuitive as “BeccaPurple”? This is stupid, and I hope rational people see this, or Eric Meyer vetoes it because this really is not how software standards should be handled.


#106

When’s the last time you looked at the named color list? They’re all random, incomprehensible names, with no rhyme or reason behind them. There’s even already a color following the “[first name][base color]” convention - aliceblue.


#107

I think BeccaPurple would fit right in this list of already existing ‘odd’ CSS color names: http://codepen.io/reimersjan/details/ItDyE


#108

Yes!

+1 for BeccaPurple


#109

Yes +1 for BeccaPurple


#110

+1 for beccapurple


#111

+1 for beccapurple .


#112

+1 for beccapurple. This is a worthy cause.


#113

-1 for beccapurple.

Eric Meyer undoubtedly had a major impact on the web design community, and his knowledge and ability to share it with us has furthered the community as a whole significantly. However, I’m going to reappropriate a couple of points made by u/sethist on r/webdev.

Becca was Meyer’s daughter, yes, and Meyer was a great teacher and web developer, but Becca had nothing to do with web design aside from that relationship. If we add beccapurple to the CSS standard, we have to start judging deaths to see if they’re “worthy” of getting a name in the spec. If Paul Mockapetris, the creator of DNS, died in a car crash, would we add a .paul TLD to commemorate him? If someone loses their wife in a car crash and they want to rename a color too, do we tell them their loss isn’t important enough or add them all?

The existing named colors were already in use before CSS as well. aliceblue, for instance, is so named because years upon years prior to CSS even existing, it was a commonly used name to refer to that exact color. No one forced a new name onto it.

There’s just no place for this kind of emotional attachment in technical specifications, something which are inherently unemotional because they’re intended solely to outline exactly how something must or should be done. There are probably better ways of memorializing Becca anyway.


#114

-1.

A web spec is not a memorial site.

I’m sorry for Meyer’s loss and I appreciate the things he has done for the web.


#115

I’ll keep this brief, nsgomez:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
  2. “Theoretical purity” is trumped by developer/implementer interest, according to the Priority of Constituencies—the closest web standards has to rules, if you really want to be all bleep bloop no emotions on the internet about it.
  3. Web standards is concerned with—and made up of, if you can believe this—people.
  4. That’s an awful lot of typing just to get outvoted.

Since you’re willing to take the time to write so much about this, and apparently willing to “-1” a harmless memorial in a forum where the people concerned—who are going through a unimaginably difficult time—may very well end up reading it, you clearly care about CSS color keywords to a pathological extent. You might consider starting a campaign to remove papayawhip, to maintain equilibrium? I look forward to seeing how you’ll put this drive of yours to good use—web standards could always use more passionate participants, assuming you’re willing to put in the time and effort.

Or it’s possible that you just had a Super Important Contrarian Opinion that you needed eeeveryone to know, and saw an easy textarea to smear it all over? It would be strange to see someone so sure of what specs are for that hasn’t and doesn’t plan to work on one. If that’s the case—perish the thought—you might consider taking it to Reddit, as the people actually willing to get involved in web standards have work to do here.


#116

+1 for this is a lovely idea, and precisely because it does represent our humanity and desire to help, connect, and remember. I feel a bit sorry for the handful of naysayers who would wish for a web built by robots. What you seem to want is impossible anyway. All color names spring from some type of human experience; an observation of the natural beauty around us or a nod to a specific historical context, and occasionally a seemingly arbitrary or mysterious inspiration takes hold. (Does anyone out there know why Gainsboro Gray was thus named?) All color observation, and therefore the act of color naming, is filtered through our emotional and imperfect humanness.


#117

Nothing he said is even close to a slippery slope argument. Also you’re rather childish mat. I can’t believe you went and posted on twitter that I lack empathy because I’m criticizing a technical issue with technical arguments. https://twitter.com/wilto/status/477536616274493442 You need to grow up and figure out you’re not as hot shit as you think you are. This is a bad suggestion and it won’t be universally implemented, and Eric Meyer never requested this shit in the first place. Maybe you should stick with what you know.


#118

lucy_i, I appreciate the response and I get what you’re saying. I figure saying that web specs are inherently unemotional was the wrong way to approach it , but I still don’t feel comfortable turning CSS into a memorial, because then we need to start quantifying who’s important enough to get their own additions to the spec when they die.

Wilto, I didn’t realize that I didn’t have a right to voice an opinion that goes against the majority. Believe it or not, RFCs and spec proposals aren’t a blind vote but a grounds for debating the subject matter. I at least figured to elaborate on the point I was making because of the strong support for it, because I know either way there’d be some sort of complaint against it, regardless of if I just said “-1” or formed an actual argument.

I’ll admit I’m not heavily involved in the spec development process. Thank you for pointing that out to me, I sincerely appreciate the fact that because I’m an outsider to your special exclusive club of “real men at work” any argument I make is completely invalid and should be brought elsewhere.


#120

Can people stand back for a while? Just because some disagree with this proposal being the most appropriate mean to the end, doesn’t mean that these people also lack compassion and empathy or that you’d feel ‘sorry for the handful of naysayers who would wish for a web built by robots.’ Couldn’t you just tell them that they are wrong and stop at that?

And apparently the supporters are holding off until they hear back from Eric Meyer. Now, does his say still matters? Because if he said no, then he would also deserve an ‘open-hand slap with a massive and disconcertingly proud lack of empathy into paste.’ Well at least according to Mat.

When you call out people being lack of compassion, you are not giving an opinion – you are giving a test: you’re testing wither the poster has compassion, and the only way to pass is to support this proposal; and of course, Meyer is exempt from this prerequisite and thus is the only person who can say no.

I think you all can tell I don’t particular fancy this technique.


#121

Was trying to explain my thoughts, which I do think is more useful than stopping in to say “You’re wrong.” and then going away again. However I will retract that bit about me feeling sorry for anyone. I do feel it’s confusing that you ask people to stand back and then go on for another three paragraphs yourself. Doesn’t really seem fair that you get to carry on the discussion while asking the rest of us to zip it.