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

(I'll send you a pull request shortly to update the Color Web
recommendation. I shouldn't have left it as a separate note that would be
easy to miss.)

On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 7:25 PM Chris Blume (ProgramMax) <
programmax@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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!
>>
>