- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 13:56:25 +0300
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Jul 24, 2004, at 00:47, Chris Lilley wrote: > One statement is false that I can see: > >>> However, the implementors weren’t sufficiently warned about the >>> effects of gamma “correction” in situations where the image is not in >>> isolation, so instead of fixing the original problem PNG gamma >>> “correction” created a new, even worse problem: inconsistent color >>> within a Web page. > > Yes, they were sufficiently warned and at the same time that PNG was > going through standardization at W3C, so was the concept of identical > color handling in CSS colors. My reasoning is that the fact the problem exists on a notable scale today indicates that the warnings did not suffice. > That the implementors failed to do what the spec said (they had agreed > the spec should say) cannot be blamed on not being informed about it. > They were. Frequently and at length. By me. But not by the spec which gives the impression that you need to tamper with the gamma and basing such tampering on the name of the OS is OK. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://iki.fi/hsivonen/
Received on Sunday, 25 July 2004 06:56:36 UTC