W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2012

Re: [css4-color] unclamped values for RGB

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 21:18:56 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDC=zPqrhmn-U8+DQy_EMnLZObBh2wwnr4KFr=Y5WbMSWA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 2:34 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

> * Rik Cabanier wrote:
> >I think this feature should be dropped and replaced with something that is
> >colorimetrically correct. This could be Lab or the ability to specify what
> >profile the author intends to use (or both :-0)
> You seem to be arguing for implementations of the color-profile and ren-
> dering-intent "properties" that are in SVG 1.1 and semi-are [sic] in CSS
> Level 3 Color. Could you restate the problem you see assuming that all
> the CSS implementation support those features reasonably well?
I haven't thought all of this through yet. :-)

The problem I see with the current spec, is that it is wrong and that it
will make decent color management in the future impossible. CMS is
primarily about mapping gamuts from one colorspace to another [1]. By
removing the clamping, the gamut is made infinite so this becomes

I think if CSS implements the SVG color-profile property [2] (without the
<name> keyword), that would be a great step forward. Old implementations
would ignore it, so their colors will look slightly off but would most
likely still be reasonable.
Lab would be really great since it corresponds to how we perceive color.
This makes gradients and meshes more pleasing to the eye and has no need
for profiles from the user's side.

It's not unthinkable that in the near future there will be a race for best
color displays (like there now is for resolution) so it would be good to be


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_management#Gamut_mapping
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/color.html#ColorProfileProperty
Received on Sunday, 17 June 2012 19:19:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:00 UTC