Re: [css-color] wider/deeper colors

> On Feb 11, 2016, at 4:15 am, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Feb 11, 2016, at 11:59, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 11, 2016, at 11:40 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 2. We will add a new function for describing colors that accepts a
>>>>>> color-profile name and a variable number of arguments. e.g.
>>>>>> color("bt2020", 0.7, 0.3, 0.1). The name can be linked to a
>>>>>> @color-profile, but we will also have some predefined keywords for
>>>>>> the most common profiles.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes, exactly. I was thinking of icc rather than color, which is
>>>>> shorter and more descriptive (these are icc profiles).
>>>> 
>>>> That sounds fine by me.
>>> 
>>> Yeah, I like icc() fine.
>> 
>> I dislike this name. icc is short for "International Color Consortium”, and that doesn’t make sense as a function name to me.
>> 
>> Is CSS going to spec the acceptable list of ICC profile names, or is this left undefined?
> 
> I tend to prefer color() over icc() as well. As for where the profile names come from, should at least hardcode sRGB, and could hardcode a few more, but in general I expect that we would also have an @rule to declare color spaces.
> 
> @colors "adobe-rgb" {
>  profile: url("https://www.example.com/adobe.icc <https://www.example.com/adobe.icc>");
> }

I think we’re prefer to avoid referencing external resources for colors. What do you show before the resource is available? Transparent?

Simon