W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2016

Re: [css-color] wider/deeper colors

From: Justin Novosad <junov@google.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 09:57:27 -0500
Message-ID: <CABpaAqQQ+bUfvCyynanKX5uq88tsX1JuQLSejRT96NjnxF+=Fg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:15 AM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:

>
> > On Feb 11, 2016, at 11:59, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:
> >
> > I dislike this name. icc is short for "International Color Consortium”,
> and that doesn’t make sense as a function name to me.
> >
> > Is CSS going to spec the acceptable list of ICC profile names, or is
> this left undefined?
>
> I tend to prefer color() over icc() as well. As for where the profile
> names come from, should at least hardcode sRGB, and could hardcode a few
> more, but in general I expect that we would also have an @rule to declare
> color spaces.
>

I agree icc() is not good. As far as color profiles are concerned, icc is
just the name of the standard we currently use for encoding them. Using
that name would be equivalent to naming the image tag <png>.
If you bake in a notion of a particular format or standard, in the future
you end up with questions like: Why is there an "Xml" in front of
"HttpRequest"?
Received on Thursday, 11 February 2016 14:57:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:00 UTC