hsluv VS csswg-drafts

Here's a potential solution to having consistent accessible color palettes in Koala: https://www.hsluv.org

If you want to take a step further, take a look into perceptually uniform color spaces, like HSL(uv) or LCh(uv).

Maxima enabled me to make my color space [HSLuv](https://www.hsluv.org/). I encoded CIELUV <-> RGB transformation functions into Maxima, ran `solve` and converted the output back into code. It's great to be able to commit [Maxima code](https://github.com/hsluv/hsluv/tree/master/math) into your repository and not leave the math as an "exercise to the reader".

If you want to make it more useful than a browser's built-in color picker, perhaps support other color spaces? Maybe HSLuv or CIE L*a*b*?

Chroma could be included, but as a minor criterion. When I look at color pickers that try to balance human perception against geometric simplicity like HSLuv and Okhsl, chroma is the property that gets distorted the most. Perceptual brightness and hue seem to be more important.

> Now, HSL isn't necessarily the best color mode to use in every situation; it tends to produce gradients that can be overly bright and vivid, because it doesn't take into account human perception.

Shout-out to to [HSLUV](https://www.hsluv.org/) which does exactly that.

I'm a little bit of a color freak. Allow me to leave some suggestions :)

- Picking from the 256 color pallete will likely give you colors with different brightness. This may hurt readability of darker colors on a dark background, and may make some color stand out unintentionally. Consider using something like HSLuv [1] to pick colors with the same lightness, then convert to the closest Xterm color [2].

- To make it obvious there is a gradient, I'd pick one lightness (assuming HSLuv) and one saturation (I usually stick to 100%), then pick a distance in hue for each step. For example if I expect to see a maximum of 7 steps on the screen at once, one way is to start at 0, then 30, then 60, etc. You may choose to go over 180, but keep in mind 360 will be the same as 0 so maybe stop at 240. Note how by picking adjacent colors from the table you are still picking a distance, but the distance is too small so it's hard to see.

- You may want to choose a different starting point than 0, and maybe different direction for the steps, depending on whether you want the colors to "mean" anything. For example red is commonly associated with warning, so you can arrange to have the top of the range aligned with red. Or arrange to avoid the red region if you don't want that association.

[1] https://www.hsluv.org/

Check out HSLuv as an alternative for UI design: https://www.hsluv.org/

HSLuv is a HSL alternative, which aims to maintain the perceived lightness of colors across the hue spektrum. It also includes a HPLuv variant, which additionally maintains saturation, at the cost of color coverage. Both are very useful for procedually generating or modifying colors. More Info: https://www.hsluv.org/comparison/

For more background, and some detailed discussion of the opposite argument ("display: masonry" over "display:grid"+"grid-template-rows: masonry") see https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9041

The tracking issue: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8659

As noted there, okHSL/HSV keeps the perceptual uniformity by removing some peaks beyond the geometric limit of HSL/HSV, and it is unclear whether it is what users do expect or not.

The idea is that you should be able to set accent color via accent-color CSS property. It is discussed that there should be access to the color value of this property, e.g. via AccentColor or AccentColorText.

What do you mean by "official documentation"? The specification [1]? MDN [2]?

[1] https://drafts.csswg.org/

[2] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS

The former is not meant as a learning resource for new web devs and the latter usually has information about the "baseline" support ond browser compatibility tables.

The link corresponding to the actual submission title (“CSS WG resolved to officially work on native custom functions and mixins”):

https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9350#issuecomment...

> RESOLVED: Start ED of css-mixins for CSS Custom Functions and Mixins

Recently I was reading the Learn CSS the pedantic way book and the definition for inline boxes did not match the way that anonymous block boxes were generated when an inline-level element had a block-level element as its child. So I went looking elsewhere for a more appropriate definition for that case and found this issue on standards: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1477 It was really interesting to know that I was not the only one confused. My question was: Does the inline-box generated by the inline-level element contains the box generated by the block-level child or there wasn't an inline-box that was a parent of them all but there were 2 siblings inline-level boxes of the block-level box that were wrapped in another anonymous block boxes? Reading that issue I got to know the concept of fragments, which I did not know browsers had. But the issue seems to suggest that the box tree for this case should have the inline-box as being a parent of the block-box. Which led me to another question, in that case, if I apply a border to the parent inline-level element, shouldn't it apply to the overall box that is generated (it does not)? The answer is that borders between block-boxes and inline-level boxes should not intersect but that is really difficult to derive from reading the standards alone. Anyway it was headache-inducing trying to learn the box-model pedantically :)

With all the recent CSS improvements I still miss the possibility to have working transition to "height:auto". The issue [1] on csswg-drafts is the most upvoted one. At least we can now use css grid and track sizes transitions, but it's far from intuitive, transition for "height:auto" should just work.

[1]: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/626

Masonry isn’t ready to be shipped as there are still quite a few open spec issues [^1] that need to be resolved first.

[^1]: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3...

the irc log is here: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7542#issuecomment...

i had the same reaction, it seems like a very weird syntax. but after reading the discussion i get it: you're telling a form field to behave like a normal html element, instead of behaving like a form field.