- From: Anthony Grasso <anthony.grasso@cisra.canon.com.au>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:00:23 +1000
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- CC: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Hi Chris, Well spotted! I'm happy with that wording. Kind Regards, Anthony Chris Lilley wrote: > Hello , > > I just noticed a problem in Appendix H. > http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/publish/jpeg.html > > > SVG Tiny 1.2 UA's should convert Y,Cb,Cr values compressed in the > JPEG image to RGB as defined in the JFIF specification [JFIF] and > may assume that the RGB values are sRGB. > > While that usefully covers what colour space is meant by RGB, in the > absence of other information (since the JFIF specification is silent > on the matter) it should obviously not take precedence when > information *is* supplied (ie an ICC colour profile in the JPEG > image). The current wording seems to forbid this, which is not wanted. > > For Tiny, colour management is optional but profiles that build on > Tiny may require it. I suggest therefore this modified wording; it > adds no new conformance criteria but makes the intention clearer: > > SVG Tiny 1.2 UA's should convert Y,Cb,Cr values compressed in the > JPEG image to RGB as defined in the JFIF specification [JFIF] and > may assume, in the absence of a colour profile, that the RGB values > are sRGB. >
Received on Friday, 18 July 2008 04:02:12 UTC