orange

M

menu boy

Can someone provide me a good html # for orange? I can't
seem to quite get it right. I tried F6910, but it seems
too much like a peach color. F7800 is too dark with too
much red. TIA
 
E

Els

menu said:
Can someone provide me a good html # for orange? I can't
seem to quite get it right. I tried F6910, but it seems
too much like a peach color. F7800 is too dark with too
much red. TIA

Orange should be #FFA500, or do you mean a # code: 42495 ?
Never used that one, but my colorpicker translates HTML #FFA500
to # 42495. (and to rgb(255,165,0))
 
J

Jukka K. Korpela

Els said:
Orange should be #FFA500

Should it? The name orange is undefined as a color name in CSS 1 and CSS 2,
as well as in HTML. Thus, a conforming browser ignores a CSS rule or HTML
attribute to the extent that it uses that name.

In the CSS 2.1 draft, orange is (completely pointlessly) suggested to be
defined as meaning #FFA500.

But we cannot read the OP's mind and say what he means by "orange".
What he really needs is a numeric code for the color he wants.
A color picker is a suitable tool for that.
 
E

Els

Jukka said:
Should it?

I'm sorry. I should have mentioned that this particular use of
the word 'should' was not intended the way you read it.
The name orange is undefined as a color name in
CSS 1 and CSS 2, as well as in HTML. Thus, a conforming
browser ignores a CSS rule or HTML attribute to the extent
that it uses that name.

In the CSS 2.1 draft, orange is (completely pointlessly)
suggested to be defined as meaning #FFA500.

I don't see it as pointless. If I tell the browser to give
some element background-color:eek:range, it's useful to know it
translates that colour to #FFA500.
But we cannot read the OP's mind and say what he means by
"orange". What he really needs is a numeric code for the
color he wants. A color picker is a suitable tool for that.

Yes, and that's what I use. I didn't however have the url to
an online tool at hand, so I did the best I could, I answered
his question, which was "Can someone provide me a good html #
for orange?".

I did exactly that. I provided him with a good html # for
orange. Whether he decides it's the one he wants is up to him.
 
T

Toby Inkster

Jukka said:
Should it? The name orange is undefined as a color name in CSS 1 and
CSS 2, as well as in HTML.

True, though for practical purposes, most browsers [1] support all the
colours defined in the X11 colour set. Orange is one of these.

This is recognised and formalised in the CSS 3.0 drafts.

____
[1] including Netscape 2+, Internet Explorer 3+ and IIRC every
publically-released version of Opera[2].
[2] though Opera prior to 3.6x had some problems with a few specific
colours. Those were AliceBlue, BurlyWood, Crimson, DarkBlue, DarkCyan,
DarkGray, DarkMagenta, DarkRed, Indigo, LightGreen, LightGray,
SaddleBrown, Salmon and WhiteSmoke. But it had no problem with Orange.
 
N

Nik Coughin

menu said:
Can someone provide me a good html # for orange? I can't
seem to quite get it right. I tried F6910, but it seems
too much like a peach color. F7800 is too dark with too
much red. TIA

I like #ff7f00, the midpoint between red #ff0000 and yellow #ffff00.
 
M

menu boy

Els said:
I'm sorry. I should have mentioned that this particular use of
the word 'should' was not intended the way you read it.


I don't see it as pointless. If I tell the browser to give
some element background-color:eek:range, it's useful to know it
translates that colour to #FFA500.


Yes, and that's what I use. I didn't however have the url to
an online tool at hand, so I did the best I could, I answered
his question, which was "Can someone provide me a good html #
for orange?".

I did exactly that. I provided him with a good html # for
orange. Whether he decides it's the one he wants is up to him.

The # was perfect. Thanks.
 
R

Richard

Can someone provide me a good html # for orange? I can't
seem to quite get it right. I tried F6910, but it seems
too much like a peach color. F7800 is too dark with too
much red. TIA


#F72 works close.
 
J

Jukka K. Korpela

Els said:
I'm sorry. I should have mentioned that this particular use of
the word 'should' was not intended the way you read it.

You did not supply any meaning for "should", so it is reasonable to expect
that it was meant as a normative or prescriptive, as in normal prose.
I don't see it as pointless. If I tell the browser to give
some element background-color:eek:range, it's useful to know it
translates that colour to #FFA500.

No it isn't. It's better not to use color names at all, except perhaps
white and black (maybe red and a few other colors when you are doing some
quick & dirty _testing_). The color names are far from clear intuitively.
In common language, "orange" means a wide range of colors, somewhat
different to different people. It is arbitrary to assign a specific
RGB value to it. It is difficult and unnecessary to remember such things.
I answered
his question, which was "Can someone provide me a good html #
for orange?".

The _correct_ answer is "it depends on what you mean by 'orange'".
 
E

Els

Jukka said:
You did not supply any meaning for "should", so it is
reasonable to expect that it was meant as a normative or
prescriptive, as in normal prose.

Yup, I said I'm sorry :p
No it isn't. It's better not to use color names at all,
except perhaps white and black (maybe red and a few other
colors when you are doing some quick & dirty _testing_).
The color names are far from clear intuitively. In common
language, "orange" means a wide range of colors, somewhat
different to different people. It is arbitrary to assign a
specific RGB value to it. It is difficult and unnecessary
to remember such things.

I find it far easier to remember the word Orange than to
remember #FFA500.
What I did was: I made an element orange, then used my
favourite colour pipet to pick it up from my screen, and asked
it what the name of the colour was. It said #FFA500.
Sorry, that's my method. It seemed to work even :)
The _correct_ answer is "it depends on what you mean by
'orange'".

Well, the OP asked, I answered, he was happy, so what is your
problem then?

BTW, for the "correctness" of the answer: OP asked "a good
html #". Not: "the good html #".
 
J

Jukka K. Korpela

Els said:
Well, the OP asked, I answered, he was happy, so what is your
problem then?

I have no problem here. The OP may have a problem, since he is happy with a
wrong answer. I simply pointed at that.

I would probably have sent this by E-mail, but I don't usually even try
E-mail to people who apparently forge their From fields. Note f'ups.
 
E

Els

I have no problem here.

Good :)
The OP may have a problem, since he
is happy with a wrong answer. I simply pointed at that.

We disagree about the correctness of my answer.
I would probably have sent this by E-mail, but I don't
usually even try E-mail to people who apparently forge
their From fields.

No problem using email. My From field may look forged, but it
isn't. Mail will arrive with or without the nospam bit.
Note f'ups.

F'up ignored ;-)
 
M

menu boy

Jukka K. Korpela said:
I have no problem here. The OP may have a problem, since he is happy with a
wrong answer. I simply pointed at that.

I was happy with the choice of orange he provided which was my intention.
I wanted someone's opinion, I got it. Now, let's end this silly thread.
 
E

Els

menu said:
I was happy with the choice of orange he provided which was
my intention. I wanted someone's opinion, I got it. Now,
let's end this silly thread.

Only if you promise never to call me 'he' again <g>
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,763
Messages
2,569,563
Members
45,039
Latest member
CasimiraVa

Latest Threads

Top