Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: clli change from mLUm

A.) Necessary? No. But I think it is a good move.
We could have named the chunk "aBCd". That would have been a bad name
though.
We came up with "mLUm" out of nowhere. When read as "max luminance", it is
somewhat descriptive.
But since there is already an industry standard around "CLLI", I feel like
that is a much better name than our pulled-from-thin-air name.

B.) I believe we originally designed the chunk to match existing other
specs, byte for byte.

I created a GitHub issue and assigned it to you
<https://github.com/w3c/PNG-spec/issues/283>, Chris Seeger.
I vote that we go ahead with the rename. It sounds like Chris Lilley feels
similarly.

On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 6:10 PM Seeger, Chris (NBCUniversal) <
Chris.Seeger@nbcuni.com> wrote:

> Everything is the same except the name.
>
>
>
> It’s a change from mLUm to cLLi everywhere in the doc.
>
>
>
> Data and syntax are unchanged.
>
>
>
> cLLi will match the full descriptive name “Content Light Level
> Information” which is used everywhere else.  It was a miss on my part, but
> I think will avoid confusion for those who are familiar with pre-existing
> terminology: cLLi.
>
>
>
> -Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:56 PM
> *To: *Seeger, Chris (NBCUniversal) <Chris.Seeger@nbcuni.com>
> *Cc: *Chris Blume (ProgramMax) <programmax@gmail.com>, public-png@w3.org <
> public-png@w3.org>
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: clli change from mLUm
>
> (a) Is this absolutely necessary and (b) are the semantics and
> encoding of the ISO structure identical to the current mLUm?
>
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 2:53 PM Seeger, Chris (NBCUniversal)
> <Chris.Seeger@nbcuni.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> >
> >
> > Should I proceed with the cLLi change from mLUm?
> >
> >
> > Best,
> > Chris
>