- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:18:59 -0700
- To: Chris Murphy <lists@colorremedies.com>
- Cc: W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>, Ludger Buenger <ludger.buenger@realobjects.com>
On Jul 29, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > I would say YES absolutely CMYK support should be stalled until, at > a minimum, a default source color space is defined for it. And then > understanding that there are many more flavors of CMYK widely in use > than there are flavors of RGB, it should be apparent that the CSS3 > spec, if it's going to support something as arcane as CMYK at all, > should allow for defining an alternate CMYK color space than the > default. This could be done simply by referencing an existing > standard characterization set from the ICC registry. An ICC profile > need not be created, specified, or embedded. I agree that a default profile for untagged CMYK should be included in the spec. Do we know if Prince or PDFreactor currently makes any profile assumptions along those lines? SWOP, perhaps? On Jul 30, 2009, at 7:37 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: > And in particular there is no case to be made for subjecting the > planet to a page description language that is incapable of > unambiguously defining color. Well, we already have that (regarding RGB, at least), don't we, inasmuch as CSS can be called a page description language? RGB colors on a Web page can vary widely from monitor to monitor, and from printer to printer.
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 15:19:47 UTC