W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > July 2019

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-color-4] Predefined colorspaces (#4056)

From: jstblck via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 17:44:43 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-507778342-1562089482-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Thank you for your reply @svgeesus.

> The P3 colorspace was introduced into CSS Color at the request of Apple. We originally called it DCI P3 because that was what we thought it was. As more information emerged (different whitepoint, different viewing conditions and transfer curve) the naming was discussed in the CSS WG. image-p3 is the name that emerged as the favourite. Representatives from Apple were involved in those discussions.

I'm suprised that Apple didn't want it to be called `display-p3` instead of `image-p3`.

> `Adobe RGB (1998)` is the official, trademarked, name of the Adobe colorspace. For licensing, trademark and copyright reasons, that phrase can't be used to describe the colorspace used in CSS. (I know). Nor can we use the phrase `Adobe` which would be a registered trademark infringement.
> By the way there were several variants of the Adobe colorspace, so the 1998 specifier is an important part. This is why CSS has a colorspace called `a98rgb`.
> It might indeed be more consistent to write `a98-rgb` and also `prophoto-rgb` which would also be easier to read.

It's a shame `adobe` can't be used. Would `a-rgb-98` be better? That seems more consistent but also easy to read and wright.

I just think the built-in profiles need a naming scheme. Ideally, one that's consistent, easy-to-parse, and scaleable.

GitHub Notification of comment by jstblck
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4056#issuecomment-507778342 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2019 17:44:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:50 UTC