Re: [css-color] wider/deeper colors

> On Nov 2, 2015, at 5:16 PM, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Nov 2, 2015, at 4:57 PM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 03 Nov 2015, at 08:09, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> We had a productive discussion about colors outside sRGB last week and I wanted to summarize the outcome. I also have provided some new comments. Please let me know if I got details incorrect. And please remember, IANACE (color expert).
>>> 
>>> 1. Add a new media query that is able to detect the "depth" of the display. I put that word in quotes because I think the current "color" query isn't sufficient and we need a term to better describe what we're trying to detect. The "color" query examines the number of bits per channel, but that doesn't allow you to ask if the display can show things outside sRGB. Instead we suggest there should be range-type query that allows you to detect "normal" (typical displays from today, in the sRGB range or about), "extended" (wider gamut displays, in the DCI P3 range or about) and "super-awesome-needs-a-better-name" displays (very wide gamut displays, in the Rec. 2020 range or about). I believe this might be the first media query that has named values but works as a range. We don't have good suggestions for the name of this query.
>> 
>> Note sure this has to be a range query. If you go with "awesome-colors: none | some | plenty", you can do "@media (awesome-colors) {...}" and have it match whenever the value is something other than none. Wouldn't that be enough?
> 
> Yeah, that should work. We just need to think of names.

We're not so sure about this any more. You might get horrible results if you authored for "plenty" and got "some" - you certainly do if you author for "some" and get "none".

You really want to build it up the other way around, and thus a min/max approach works best.

Dean

Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2015 00:28:11 UTC