- From: Aurélien PIERRE via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 20:51:56 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
And yet they are. Being the first competitor on a market doesn't prevent bad design decisions at early stage. Then they have to get on with that. Don't give meaning to mistakes. Lab **is not intended for pixel manipulations**. Also Lab is old and flawed (no HDR support, not even hue-linear), and there are a dozens of newer spaces that tried to fix it (CIECAM02, CIECAM16, IPT, IPT-HDR, JzAzBz, Lab-HDR, etc.). So I wonder why devs still use that old flawed thing from 1976. My bet is because it is the only one they know (as in "blatantly ignorant"). If you understand the very concept of occlusion, from an optical point of view, you know that alpha occlusion in Lab is plain non-sensical. Just paint on some glass sheet with a marker and overlay that on whatever scene : the occlusion you get as a result cannot be modelled accurately in Lab. -- GitHub Notification of comment by aurelienpierre Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4647#issuecomment-633297559 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 24 May 2020 20:51:58 UTC