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: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 04:34:56 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-511172542-1563078895-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
I'm glad that `image-p3` will now be called `display-p3`.

> In terms of consistent hyphenation: everyone writes `srgb` (well, they write `sRGB`) and `s-rgb` would be odd.

I don't think sRGB should be named `s-rgb`.

The current built-in profiles are: sRGB, Display P3, Adobe RGB (1998), ProPhoto RGB, and Rec 2020. These are the common names.

I suggest that we first replace the spaces with hyphens (eg `srgb`, `display-p3`, `adobe-rgb` (1998), `prophoto-rgb`, and `rec-2020`).

Then if necessary, I suggest we add a hyphen and the version to the end (eg `adobe-rgb-1998` or `adobe-rgb-98` [I'm not sure which]). Currently, this is only necessary for Adobe RGB.

Also if necessary, I suggest we shorten or replace trademarked names (eg `adobe-rgb-1998`/`adobe-rgb-98` could be shorted to `a-rgb-1998`/`a-rgb-98`). Again, this is only necessary for Adobe RGB currently.

The naming scheme would then be the common name (unless trademarked and with hyphens instead of spaces), and if necessary, a hyphen and the version added to the end (such as the year for Adobe RGB).

PS: Is it a policy of the W3C that its standard don't include trademarks, or is it that Adobe would object to us using its name?

[According to Adobe](https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/adobergb.html):

>Legal note regarding color-space naming: Only the Adobe RGB (1998) ICC profile created by Adobe Systems Incorporated can accurately be referred to as "Adobe RGB (1998)." ICC profiles created by other vendors, even if they conform to the color image encoding described in the Adobe RGB (1998) color image encoding document, cannot be referred to as "Adobe RGB (1998)." If vendors choose to create their own profile according to this specification, and they want to indicate to their customers that this profile was written in accordance with Adobe's specification, then an alternate phrasing is required, such as "compatible with Adobe RGB (1998)."

Does that mean that Adobe would allow something like `adobe-rgb-1998-compatible`? I'm not suggesting we use that, but maybe they would allow it to be shortened to `adobe-rgb-1998`/`adobe-rgb-98`?

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by jstblck
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4056#issuecomment-511172542 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 14 July 2019 04:34:58 UTC

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