- From: Chris Blume (ProgramMax) <programmax@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 May 2023 13:54:29 -0400
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: public-png@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAG3W2KeOY7h74=YpH9toEtqMnd9diOHh_w3VFOHRBkSQJqr0eg@mail.gmail.com>
Average luminance GitHub Issue is here <https://github.com/w3c/PNG-spec/issues/311>. Good idea to discuss our next publication. Would you like to start that conversation here? My understanding is we're in a good spot but could wrap up a few last issues if we wanted. But they aren't blockers. I also believe we would need to vote on if we're ready for our next publication. To that end, I would love to hear from people about how they feel and if something would make them hesitate to vote 'yes'. On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 10:24 AM Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote: > I'm fine cancelling Monday's meeting, but I would like there to be some > discussion about what we need to do to publish an updated PNG Working Draft > so that we can start TAG review. > > I also suggest putting the content from your average luminance paragraph > below into a GitHub issue, which is much easier to keep track of than email. > > Agree that we should meet informally but that there isn't a pressing > reason to hold a meeting at TPAC. > On 2023-05-12 18:36, Chris Blume (ProgramMax) wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > My internet suddenly dropped out yesterday and has been pretty unstable > ever since. I'm not confident that I'll be able to host Monday's meeting. > > I'm happy for someone else to host if they want. But we also might not > have much to talk about which couldn't be an email. > > - Do we know of any standard which carries average luminance > information? (This is different from MaxFALL.) This is needed for SMPTE ST > 2094-10. We could perhaps add it to the cLLi chunk. But then that chunk no > longer resembles the standard it was based on. Plus, the content authoring > app could know that the content isn't in a color space where average > luminance is a normal tool for tone mapping (and thus SMPTE ST 2094-10 > doesn't apply). > - Anne suggested we use official wording for implementation defined > <https://infra.spec.whatwg.org/#implementation-defined> when it comes > to either historic implementation divergence which we now corrected onto > one path, or things we do not want to define. I think this is a good idea. > Thoughts? > - No one has mentioned yet if they feel the PNG WG should make an > official presence at TPAC 2023. (We can still go if we want.) Unless there > is a push for it, I'll respond to W3C soon letting them know we do not > intend to go as a group. > > Let me know your thoughts on these topics and if you want to keep Monday's > meeting. > > Thanks! > - Chris > > -- > Chris Lilley > @svgeesus > Technical Director @ W3C > W3C Strategy Team, Core Web Design > W3C Architecture & Technology Team, Core Web & Media > >
Received on Saturday, 13 May 2023 17:54:48 UTC