- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 16:27:32 -0800
- To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Cc: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: >> Browsers *do* handle wide-gamut images, when they're appropriately >> tagged and going straight to the screen. > > Can you give an example where that is happening? > It would be odd to have part of a document displayed with a different > profile. No, because I have neither a wide-gamut monitor nor any wide-gamut images, so I've no way to tell if any example I draw up would actually work. But, per previous conversations with Noel on our Sydney team, we do indeed send wide-gamut images through to the monitor when they're not being composited with anything else. >> And we (Chrome) are working >> on making it composite properly, too, though that's difficult. > > Yes, the only way to do this would be to composite the whole page in a > difference colorspace which requires a lot of transformations of the sRGB > elements. > I believe only Apple has the framework in place to support this. Yeah, like I said, we're working on it. It involves either clever tricks, or blowing up the size of images in texture memory, or both. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 29 January 2015 00:28:19 UTC