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

Re: Proposed 'color-correction' property

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:31:54 -0800
Cc: W3C Style List <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2C9FC5C8-BB95-42C2-A6DD-BD33A91D14C3@apple.com>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Yes, I see both of your points.  The trouble is that author expectations are also violated if videos are treated as sRGB, as this is rarely right.

Perhaps we'll need text in both the HTML and CSS specs recommending that all images and videos be correctly tagged, and that color correction is turned on, and noting that if you fly untagged, or allow 'browser default' behavior (which may change over time as well as between browsers) you are unlikely to find all your customers pleased by the result, even if it looks OK to you.

On Nov 17, 2009, at 1:48 , Henri Sivonen wrote:

> On Nov 17, 2009, at 06:22, David Singer wrote:
> 
>> But I think we agreed that we'd suggest that HTML document video as having a CCIR 601 default, not sRGB, and that the sRGB here applied to CSS colors and images.
> 
> As I mentioned on public-html, I think author expectations are violated rather severely if by default unlabeled video colors aren't treated the same as unlabeled image and unlabeled CSS colors.
> 
> If I slice out a poster frame from a larger image (so that the rest of the image appears to surround the video and with the poster frame it makes a full image) and I make sure all the colors are unlabeled, the color should be consistent across 1) poster frame image file, 2) the first frame of the video file, 3) surrounding image files and 4) CSS-rendered parts of the page (e.g. text).
> 
> -- 
> Henri Sivonen
> hsivonen@iki.fi
> http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
> 
> 
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 17 November 2009 19:32:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:22 GMT