- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 15:37:29 -0700
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu> wrote: > On 5/11/10 4:59 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Perry Smith<pedzsan at gmail.com> ?wrote: >>> >>> Well, my take is just the opposite. ?Portability should dictate only if >>> the >>> user wants portability. ?I don't believe we confine what colors can be >>> picked based upon what is portable. >> >> Actually... ?some machines can display colors with rgb values outside >> of the [0,255] range. ?But CSS clamps you to that range because it's >> portable. > > CSS clamps to [0,255]? ?Since when? > http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#rgb-color says: > > ?Values outside the device gamut should be clipped or mapped into > ?the gamut when the gamut is known: the red, green, and blue values > ?must be changed to fall within the range supported by the device. > ?User agents may perform higher quality mapping of colors from one > ?gamut to another. This specification does not define precise > ?clipping behavior. > ?... > ?Other devices, such as printers, have different gamuts than sRGB; > ?some colors outside the 0..255 sRGB range will be representable > ?(inside the device gamut), while other colors inside the 0..255 > ?sRGB range will be outside the device gamut and will thus be mapped. > > There is then an example that says that on an sRGB device rgb(300,0,0) will > be the same as rgb(255,0,0)... but on a non-sRGB device they may well not > be. This is why I should read more closely, dammit. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 15:37:29 UTC