W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2008

Re: [css3 color] ICC profile reference

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 12:16:33 +0200
Message-ID: <481389797.20080514121633@w3.org>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: "Grant, Melinda" <melinda.grant@hp.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>

On Wednesday, May 14, 2008, 12:17:04 AM, L. wrote:

LDB> On Tuesday 2008-05-13 12:01 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:

>> On Tuesday, May 13, 2008, 2:02:03 AM, L. wrote:

>> LDB> On Monday 2007-01-29 16:18 -0600, Grant, Melinda wrote [in
>> LDB> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Jan/0101.html ]:
>> >> Any reason why the CSS3 Color Module http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/
>> >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/>  should reference the ICC Profile
>> >> Format Specification, version 3.2. 1995 rather than the latest version,
>> >> version 4.2 at http://www.color.org/ICC1v42_2006-05.pdf
>> >> <http://www.color.org/ICC1v42_2006-05.pdf> ?

>> LDB> This was recorded as
>> LDB> http://csswg.inkedblade.net/spec/css3-color#issue-18 .  The
>> LDB> reference has been updated in the editor's draft at
>> LDB> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-color/#normative .

>> LDB> On Tuesday 2007-01-30 23:35 +0100, Chris Lilley wrote [in
>> LDB> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Jan/0113.html ]:
>> >> CL> In general (to get back to your question) it seems to be the right
>> >> CL> thing to update to the current version, it may be ok to go for "this
>> >> CL> version or higher" and I would prefer to have more hard facts to go
>> >> CL> on. I have a couple of enquiries going and will report back.  At this
>> >> CL> point I am mainly concerned with when Microsoft ICM 2.0 was updated
>> >> CL> and to check what version of ICC profiles is supported in the version
>> >> CL> that ships today (XP SP2).

>> >> It seems that my caution was, unfortunately, well justified. OS X and
>> >> Linux are on ICC v.4, but Windows XP is by default still on v.2

>> LDB> I'm having trouble if this implies that that wasn't the right thing
>> LDB> to do, though.

>> Windows Vista is now on ICC v.4, same as the other platforms. Also, I am told that third party CMS (from Adobe, Kodak, etc) used by applications under XP in preference to the native CMS also support ICC v.4.

>> So I believe referencing ICC v3.4 was the correct response.

LDB> The current response is to reference 4.2.  Did you mean 3.4 rather
LDB> than 4.2?  (I'm not sure which you mean by "v.4".)

Sorry yes, thats exactly what I meant in my last sentence. Referencing the current latest version (4.2) is the correct response. No Idea why I typed 3.4, sorry for the confusion.

version 2 and version 4 ICC profiles are different, and a v.2 processor cannot read v.4 profiles at all. The ICC specification 3.x still defines version 2 profiles. The specification from 4.x onwards defines both v.2 and v.4 profiles.





-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Interaction Domain Leader
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2008 10:17:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:06 GMT