Re: [PNG] June 13th, 2022 Meeting Topics

Correct.
Happy to hear other thoughts, of course.

One thing to note:
The priorities of the chunks proposed SHOULD put iCCN first, then cICP,
then iCCP. We agreed on that (and documented as such) in a Color Web
meeting but I never updated the recommendation.

This could mean that the existing iCCP chunk (if repurposed) gets priority
over the cICP chunk. I think this is okay?

On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 7:23 PM Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
> Thanks for the detailed investigation.
>
> To summarize, you recommend:
>
> - store ICC v4 in the existing iCCP chunk and thus not introduce a
> separate iCCN chunk
> - not support iccMAX (in this new edition)
>
> Did I get this right?'
>
> Best,
>
> -- Pierre
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 3:49 PM Chris Blume (ProgramMax)
> <programmax@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > Sorry about such late notice on the meeting topics for this coming
> Monday's meeting.
> > I realize I did not give you all time to consider the topics, which
> reduces the value of the meeting. However, they are topics we have
> discussed before. I think we can now resolve some of the discussion and
> will find value in the meeting.
> >
> > Previously, we were unsure if we needed a separate iCCN chunk or if we
> could reuse the existing iCCP chunk (making it ICC v4).
> > We also discussed potentially adding an iCCM chunk for iccMAX.
> >
> >
> > I dug deep into all of the Color on the Web Community Group history I
> could think of. I have attached the results of my investigation. Here is
> the result of my investigation:
> >
> >
> >
> > "At no point was there mention for or against repurposing the iCCP chunk
> to be ICC v4. However, there is clear acknowledgement that the existing
> iCCP chunk effectively already is ICC v4 (May 6, 2021,
> https://github.com/w3c/ColorWeb-CG/commit/c0d909ec716a997ff345a49e9773d620c0c6b747).
> This indicates a separate iCCN chunk is not needed and iCCP can indeed be
> ICC v4.
> >
> > There were also several mentions of iccMAX being desirable. However,
> there were also concerns about security and limited support. The security
> concern comes from a scripting language included in iccMAX. Although the
> scripting language is designed to be safe, it is not yet widely adopted and
> thus not trustworthy.
> >
> > We do not want to risk contentious items in the new PNG spec. Including
> an iccMAX chunk (iCCM) would endanger the other changes we want to land. I
> think it is best for us to delay the iCCM chunk for the next PNG spec
> edition. This reduces the number of changes and buys time for iccMAX to
> gain both adoption and trustworthiness."
> >
> >
> > Please review my investigation and let me know if I've missed anything.
> >
> > I'll see you on June 13th, 2022!
>