Re: [css3 color] ICC profile reference

On Tuesday 2008-05-13 12:01 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, May 13, 2008, 2:02:03 AM, L. wrote:
> 
> LDB> On Monday 2007-01-29 16:18 -0600, Grant, Melinda wrote [in
> LDB> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Jan/0101.html ]:
> >> Any reason why the CSS3 Color Module http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/
> >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/>  should reference the ICC Profile
> >> Format Specification, version 3.2. 1995 rather than the latest version,
> >> version 4.2 at http://www.color.org/ICC1v42_2006-05.pdf
> >> <http://www.color.org/ICC1v42_2006-05.pdf> ?
> 
> LDB> This was recorded as
> LDB> http://csswg.inkedblade.net/spec/css3-color#issue-18 .  The
> LDB> reference has been updated in the editor's draft at
> LDB> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-color/#normative .
> 
> LDB> On Tuesday 2007-01-30 23:35 +0100, Chris Lilley wrote [in
> LDB> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Jan/0113.html ]:
> >> CL> In general (to get back to your question) it seems to be the right
> >> CL> thing to update to the current version, it may be ok to go for "this
> >> CL> version or higher" and I would prefer to have more hard facts to go
> >> CL> on. I have a couple of enquiries going and will report back.  At this
> >> CL> point I am mainly concerned with when Microsoft ICM 2.0 was updated
> >> CL> and to check what version of ICC profiles is supported in the version
> >> CL> that ships today (XP SP2).
> 
> >> It seems that my caution was, unfortunately, well justified. OS X and
> >> Linux are on ICC v.4, but Windows XP is by default still on v.2
> 
> LDB> I'm having trouble if this implies that that wasn't the right thing
> LDB> to do, though.
> 
> Windows Vista is now on ICC v.4, same as the other platforms. Also, I am told that third party CMS (from Adobe, Kodak, etc) used by applications under XP in preference to the native CMS also support ICC v.4.
> 
> So I believe referencing ICC v3.4 was the correct response.

The current response is to reference 4.2.  Did you mean 3.4 rather
than 4.2?  (I'm not sure which you mean by "v.4".)

-David

-- 
L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/

Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2008 22:17:48 UTC