For context, here is the question on TeX.SE:
http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/129297/define-colour-transparency-in-relation-to-existing-colour
I agree with Marco:
Are you sure it's a good idea to add another colour definition
> mechanism? Then we have
>
\definecolor
\defineglobalcolor
\definenamedcolor
\definespotcolor
\definemultitonecolor
\defineprocesscolor
That is a little confusing. I can understand a speed requirement, but
surely that can be taken into consideration beneath the definition?
\definecolor[A][r=1, g=0, b=0]
\definecolor[B][A][a=1, t=0.5]
That seems fairly reasonable. Also, why not embed colour spaces within the
command?
\definecolor[A][colorspace=spot]
\definecolor[A][colorspace=multitone]
\definecolor[A][colorspace=pantone]
One command to define a colour, rather than several commands for specific
variations of defining colours.
Kind regards.
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the
Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________
