- From: Chris Murphy <lists@colorremedies.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:37:19 -0400
- To: W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
- Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
On Jul 31, 2009, at 1:00 AM, Thomas Phinney wrote: > > I'm curious, do browsers actually do color management with RGB colors > today, treating them as sRGB and doing further things with that > information? There are arguably two levels of color management for display: 1. Honor embedded profiles in images. This level of support has been in Safari 3 and 4, and Firefox 3.5 and is the default behavior. 2. Optionally assume sRGB for all other content (minus content managed by plugins), including CSS. This is an option in FireFox 3.5, and IE on Mac OS X (which is of course quite old). I'm not aware of any others. > Personally, I use unmanaged CMYK quite frequently and am happy to do > so. I have a CMYK printer, and for certain purposes I often want to > specify things just in terms of ink proportions so as to get > relatively "clean" colors to act as spot colors (e.g. printing a true > 50%K 100%M with no other colors mixed in due to color management). > However, I won't claim to be the typical CSS author, and I don't know > that I'd use unmanaged CMYK in CSS very often. This describes a possible need for encoding in CMYK. There is a class of ICC profile called the devicelink profile which can be built to behave the way you want which is to give you mostly color managed output but without things like "scum dots". There aren't many contexts where scum dots are a real problem, but instead are perceived to be a problem mostly because people are looking closer at the print than would ever be done in the real world. But the ability to encode directly in CMYK should include a required reference to the intended CMYK output process. Chris
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 12:38:05 UTC