According to this:
- red is
#FF0000 - blue is
#0000FF
So what was the reasoning behind making green not equivalent to #00FF00 but instead #008000?
asked Apr 2, 2014 at 23:11
-
MDN has better articles than w3schools, in this case, <color> article. Also see w3fools.– OriolCommented Apr 2, 2014 at 23:26
-
@Oriol thanks, I've updated the link to not use w3schools.– joshschreuderCommented Apr 2, 2014 at 23:31
Add a comment
|
4 Answers
Although #00FF00 is a pure green in the way a monitor displays green light, #008000 is a more natural green, more like green things appear in nature and thus what people expect when they ask for something green.
If a person who wasn't familiar with the RGB color model said "I want the background to be green," I'll bet they'd be expecting something more like a leafy-green #008000 than the electric-lime-green #00FF00.
-
This is more along the lines of what I was expecting from an answer (rather than the factually accurate quoting of the spec), and is probably a fair assumption. Do you have a source for this line of reasoning? Commented Apr 2, 2014 at 23:29
-
Sorry, that's just my assumption. I can't say whether that was the line of reasoning that led to the definition of "green" in the spec.– MattCommented Apr 3, 2014 at 16:44
These colour names are defined that way in the W3C specs as far back as 2001. They probably predate that by a number of years. I'd guess that the real reasons why those names were chosen are now lost in the mists of time. Sometimes we have to say 'Because...'
As others have already stated, #00FF00 is lime green, while #008000 is a more natural green.
For more information on colors and their hex/rgb/cmyk/... values check out these sites:
Because it is defined like this in the spec.
If you want a keyword for #00ff00, you can use lime.
