- From: David Perrell <davidp@hpaa.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:42:11 -0700
- To: "W3C style mailing list" <www-style@w3.org>
| RGB is not a perceptual color spec. Ambiance can be controlled by an author and a monitor can be calibrated. It is at least possible for sRGB to be unambiguous, yes? Clearly, RGB can't sub for CMYK. Converting 100%K, 30%C text to RGB and back again can really muck things up. But why would anyone use CSS to mark up documents for which appearance is critical? I don't see inclusion of CMYK without profiles as disastrous. Spec'ing CMYK colors on paste-ups didn't require printer profiles. But images are another story, and I don't see CSS markup targeting a specific type of print device. If included, CMYK should always be a *secondary* color spec, to be used *if* the device supports it. I fail to see the logic of a color spec in a module titled 'Generated Content...'. | All desktop inkjet printers are RGB for example. I believe there are drivers (e.g. Adobe PressReady, ghostscript pcl3) that can print CMYK with standard halftone screens on CMYK HP PCL printers (e.g. 970C, 1220C). | 2. A page description language absolutely should not make it easy to | create ambiguous content. I tend to agree, but CSS has always been a pretty loose PDL, and I've run into some folks absolutely anal about keeping it that way. I can't imagine CSS being used to mark up 6-color top-quality print jobs with 300dpi CMYK images. David Perrell
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 18:43:32 UTC