- From: Space Cowboy <spacecow@mis.net>
- Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 15:01:53 -0500
- To: neil@bigpic.com
- CC: "Hersh, Harry" <Harry.Hersh@fmr.com>, www-style@w3.org
Received on Monday, 1 December 1997 15:01:45 UTC
L*A*B color is supposed to show every shade of color you can think of, but does it really do any good? RGB can show more colors than CMYK can, but there shades that CMYK is capable of but not RGB. Even though L*A*B can show most visible colors, you can't produce anything but the colors in RGB on screen and CMYK in print. CSS basically a screen standard. I know it's being extended, but it's not an all-purpose standard, and shouldn't be. Since it is basically a screen standard, adding colors that can't be seen on a screen is pretty silly. HLS is a good idea, but it all will come out the same, and I really don't see a need to have conversions when the result is the same (and RGB is machine-readable, too). I would think that /at most/ you could have CMYK for "paged media," RGB for screen. Neil St.Laurent wrote: > Well, there is an inherent problem with what you said. Great I may > know how to increase read to become pink under HLS, but the problem > no lies in determining what Red is? > > I another color model is added I'd hope that it would be in line with > L*a*b rather than anything else, since if I recall correctly, this > model is capable of representing the widest range of colors.
Received on Monday, 1 December 1997 15:01:45 UTC