- From: Chris Lilley via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:59:07 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
If the code can already correctly convert from whatever source format to XYZ and then to sRGB, I see no good reason why the trivial conversion from XYZ to Lab would be "error prone". In addition, Lab uses a known reference white and adaptive state while for XYZ, one needs to specify what is the adaptation state. Notice that the sample code in the specification uses XYX at two stages, with different meaning 9before and after chromatic adaptation). On the other hand, one good reason to add XYZ would be where absolute, rather than relative, luminance needed to be directly specified. So I am not against adding them, but it needs to be well specified exactly what is being referred to by a given XYZ measurement. (Absolute vs. relative, unadapted vs. adapted). Perhaps you could explain the use case a bit more: in particular what color space is the input to this script. As to making rule validity depend on target device gamut, that is a fragile solution compared to the usual rendering intent and gamut mapping procedure which is standard in the industry. -- GitHub Notification of comment by svgeesus Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/815#issuecomment-267849913 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 18 December 2016 21:59:12 UTC