W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2009

Re: [CSS3 gcpm] CMYK colors and allowed values.

From: James Elmore <James.Elmore@cox.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:57:57 -0700
Message-Id: <A279DE0F-C8F7-453D-B47D-3579BEA20608@cox.net>
To: Chris Murphy <lists@colorremedies.com>, W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>

On Jul 31, 2009, at 5:42 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:

> This is all a fair point to make, but now I am wondering if CSS is  
> a floor wax also?
> Look, I'm fine with this module supporting CMYK. My concerns, again  
> are:
> 1. That resources that could otherwise be used to mature device- 
> independent RGB handling in CSS are not siphoned away for dealing  
> with CMYK. This is important for many more users of CSS than just  
> those using this module. But better RGB handling is needed for  
> paper-based publishing as well. There *are* RGB output devices. All  
> desktop inkjet printers are RGB for example.

I just checked the three desktop inkjet printers near my computer and  
all three are CMYK. I don't believe your last statement is factual. I  
do, however, agree that the management of resources (the balance  
between RGB improvements and CMYK new technology) is important. This  
is one of the functions of this group -- to demonstrate interest /  
importance of current and new features for CSS. The length and  
breadth of this thread demonstrates interest in BOTH, therefore it is  
necessary to apportion development resources, rather than simply  
ignore one.

> 2. A page description language absolutely should not make it easy  
> to create ambiguous content. Untagged CMYK is ambiguous. No CMYK  
> support is better than ambiguous CMYK content.

Because of its roots and usage, CSS is often ambiguous -- where do  
floats go? How many words fit on a line? Is this 'red' the same on  
all monitors? It is part of the specification that, sometimes, the  
output will look different on different days or different hardware.  
This part of the specification -- gcpm -- is for printed materials,  
and I agree with several on this thread that we must get as close to  
standardization for printed materials as possible. Since CSS MAY BE  
ambiguous, this might not be exactly what a page description language  
or full printing suite of software would produce, but CSS is too  
useful for too many things to throw away because it is imperfect.

Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 17:58:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:27 UTC