- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:30:18 +0100
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Cc: Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAGN7qDC6Kk3cT1SVi2Y30xGOOceHfK11mvh14NfzrhwkgdYmJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Mark, I hope things were cleared up at the CSS meeting yesterday [1]. Here's the link to the iccMax specification: http://www.color.org/iccmax.xalter and the link to a reference implementation: https://github.com/InternationalColorConsortium/RefIccMAX For now, it doesn't look like any changes are need to the color spec. Once iccMax is sorted out, it should simply refer to that. Rik 1: https://logs.csswg.org/irc.w3.org/css/2016-09-19/#e721928 On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:21 AM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: > > > On Sep 18, 2016, at 10:36 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sep 18, 2016, at 6:23 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 7:23 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Friday, September 16, 2016, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Rik Cabanier < >>>>>>>>>> cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Mark Watson < >>>>>>>>>>> watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Rik Cabanier < >>>>>>>>>>>> cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Mark Watson < >>>>>>>>>>>>> watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On Sep 14, 2016, at 10:05 PM, Rossen Atanassov < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 16:53:53, Mark Watson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I have some use-cases and issues / questions related to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> High Dynamic Range >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> graphics / images and how they could be supported in CSS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wondered if this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> topic was or could be on the agenda for next week ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Are you referring to our TPAC agenda? If so, we don't have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the topic scheduled and looking through everything we have it is doubtful >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we could get to it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Could you summarize your proposal? Is this something >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed at WICG already? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, TPAC. I've raised the issue of HDR a few times on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CSS list, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but with no real response. We had a breakout at TPAC last >>>>>>>>>>>>>> year, but no >>>>>>>>>>>>>> one from CSS attended. I imagine that is because people do >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not yet >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have real hardware / platform APIs with which to play with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality. Those will soon be available, so it seemed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> good timing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to raise it again and explain the various problems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I only have problems, not a proposal. The basic problem (as I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand it) is that with HDR displays, users are unlikely >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to want >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the peak white for regular sRGB to map to the peak luminance >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> display. That would make desktops blindingly bright. So there >>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a way for pages to signal when they are providing data in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sRGB >>>>>>>>>>>>>> luminance space (where peak white is what the user has set as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> comfortable luminance for their desktop according to current >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ambient >>>>>>>>>>>>>> light) and when they are providing data in a different >>>>>>>>>>>>>> luminance >>>>>>>>>>>>>> space, where peak white is brighter (exactly how bright is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> one of he >>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions to be answered.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is defined in the CSS color spec [1]. If no profile is >>>>>>>>>>>>> provided, peak white is peak sRGB white. >>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that you get blindingly white is a browser bug. (I >>>>>>>>>>>>> believe only Safari does this right today) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think there is a mis-understanding here and that is why I >>>>>>>>>>>> think the issue deserves discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As far as I can tell, [1] is entirely about color gamut. Whilst >>>>>>>>>>>> there are many ways to identify colors, the specification does not seem to >>>>>>>>>>>> treat dynamic range. The section you reference regarding profiles, >>>>>>>>>>>> says "Others are more human-friendly to write and understand, *and >>>>>>>>>>>> are converted to an sRGB color by CSS*". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> sRGB peak white will appear at the brightness the user prefers >>>>>>>>>>>> for their environment (because most of the graphics they see are sRGB and >>>>>>>>>>>> they will adjust the brightness control on their display). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> My point is that for capable displays, it should be possible to >>>>>>>>>>>> make graphics brighter than that. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you can by either providing an image with an embedded >>>>>>>>>>> profile that has a higher gamut than sRGB, or by specifying a CSS color [1] >>>>>>>>>>> with an HDR profile. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Could you give an example of how you would specify an HDR >>>>>>>>>> profile with CSS ? For example, if I wanted some white text that was twice >>>>>>>>>> as bright as sRGB(255,255,255) text ? I don't see that in the css-color >>>>>>>>>> specification. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dean wrote a blog about this: https://webkit.org/blog/ >>>>>>>>> 6682/improving-color-on-the-web/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is great, but it is all about gamut alone. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't know what profile is twice as bright as sRGB, but >>>>>>>>> color(rec2020 255 255 255) would be brighter than rgb(255, 255, 255) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why would you think that ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In video, at least, the Rec.2020 color space is used for both SDR >>>>>>>> and HDR, with a variety of transfer functions. I don't know if Rec.2020 >>>>>>>> defines a default transfer function, but if it does it is likely a gamma >>>>>>>> function like sRGB, which is scene-referred. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Someone has to decide, or signal, how the luminance range of that >>>>>>>> 2020 data relates to the luminance range of sRGB data. It's not implied by >>>>>>>> the color profile alone. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Note that I am not talking about a wider gamut - that seems to be >>>>>>>>>> well covered - but a different dynamic range (i.e. a larger color volume, >>>>>>>>>> not just larger color gamut). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "color volume". Are you talking about higher >>>>>>>>> bit depths for compositing? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, but higher bit depths are important too. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As far as I can tell, CSS and ICC profiles deal with color gamut: >>>>>>>> subspaces of the 2-dimensional CIE color space. A color in that space can >>>>>>>> be described by two coordinates. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> This is incorrect. ICC profiles use 3 dimensions. Most charts show >>>>>> color spaces as 2D projections which is probably why you think this. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> An actual pixel color has 3 coordinates and resides in a *color >>>>>>>> volume*: a three-dimensional space where the intersection of this >>>>>>>> space and a plane is the CIE space. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Color volume is part of ICC. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem we have can be thought of as a backwards compatibilty >>>>>>>> one. You *could* specify luminance on the same scale for all image >>>>>>>> / graphics data sources. And, indeed, I expect this is what the graphics >>>>>>>> plane APIs of all devices will look like. In that case an RGB pixel in any >>>>>>>> color space with linear values ( 1.0, 1.0, 1.0 ) will be rendered display >>>>>>>> peak luminance (or close). I believe this is the case with CSS as things >>>>>>>> stand. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> According to the spec, rgb(255,255,255) is rendered on as peak sRGB >>>>>> luminance which isn't necessarily the peak of what your devices is capable >>>>>> of. >>>>>> This is why you can now specify a profile (which controls the >>>>>> brightness) so you can attain what your display is capable of. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> This would support any and all HDR images / graphics, but the >>>>>>>> problem would be that peak white in both SDR and HDR data would be rendered >>>>>>>> the same. Most importantly, peak white in desktop graphics would be the >>>>>>>> same as specular highlights in HDR images. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> No since peak white is controlled by the ICC profile. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Since most desktop applications are going to stay sRGB, we need some >>>>>>>> new way for authors to specify pixels that are brighter than that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Why do you think that desktop apps are staying in sRGB? Most graphics >>>>>> applications support ICC today and the good ones support HDR. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Those colors are then mapped to the "device" color which usually >>>>>>>>>>> is the monitor's colorspace. If you have an HDR monitor and specify an HDR >>>>>>>>>>> image, you will get colors that are brighter than sRGB white. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Safari is already doing this for images so you can try this for >>>>>>>>>>> yourself if you have a capable device. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you do provide a profile, it will be used to map to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> display. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a way to embed a profile in a video stream? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Here I am not talking about video. But, yes, video metadata >>>>>>>>>>>> specifies not only color gamut (primaries) but a transfer function which is >>>>>>>>>>>> used to map between encoded luminance and actual luminance and is different >>>>>>>>>>>> for HDR and SDR video. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think we need to specify what is done with video. It seems >>>>>>>>>>> that this information needs to be used so the browser knows how to manage >>>>>>>>>>> the video's colors. >>>>>>>>>>> what happens today with video? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well, this is all rather new, so I doubt there is any >>>>>>>>>> consistency. On the various devices we have seen which composite sRGB >>>>>>>>>> graphics with HDR video it's highly variable. I expect when we see this on >>>>>>>>>> devices with desktop-class browsers, the operating system will have made >>>>>>>>>> some decision as to what luminance to map sRGB to, relative to the HDR >>>>>>>>>> images. I've heard 80 nits. I've also heard of people planning to map sRGB >>>>>>>>>> peak white to panel peak white. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To obtain CSS use-cases, imagine first a still image extracted >>>>>>>>>>>> from an HDR video, encoded in some still image format which carries HDR >>>>>>>>>>>> metadata and which is supported by the browser. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It should be possible to specify in CSS any color+luminance >>>>>>>>>>>> that appears in that image. If the video or still image pixels are >>>>>>>>>>>> constrained to be no brighter than the sRGB peak white (the luminance the >>>>>>>>>>>> user prefers for their desktop), then you will not get any improvement in >>>>>>>>>>>> appearance: for example specular highlights in the video / image would be >>>>>>>>>>>> no brighter than for an SDR video / image, even though the display may be >>>>>>>>>>>> capable of that. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, extract the transfer function and other information from >>>>>>>>>>> the video stream and use it to construct a profile. Then embed that profile >>>>>>>>>>> in your still image. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What about actually specifying one of those colors in CSS ? So >>>>>>>>>> that I can have text or graphics matching the colors in the image ? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You can place the profile on your web server,load it with css >>>>>>>>> using @color-profile and use the name with the css color property. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Like I said, I don't think the profile is enough, since it is >>>>>>>> addressing gamut. Certainly, Rec. 2020, for example, does not tell me how >>>>>>>> much brighter than sRGB it's peak white should be. In video we have >>>>>>>> additional metadata for that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems that there are some differences between the video and >>>>>>> desktop world. >>>>>>> I'm going to talk to some of our color experts to learn more about >>>>>>> this subject. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I talked to our people that deal with color for our video application >>>>>> (premiere and after effects) and they say there's no difference between >>>>>> video and desktop profiles. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In video, signals are accompanied with data including, separately, the >>>>> color gamut and the transfer function. If I look at BT.2020, for example, >>>>> it specifies color primaries and a scene-referred transfer function mapping >>>>> the quantized tristimulus values to linear in the range 0-1. BT.2020 does >>>>> not tell you "how bright" (1,1,1) should be. >>>>> >>>>> It does say: >>>>> >>>>> "In typical production practice the encoding function of image sources >>>>> is adjusted so that the final picture has the desired look, as viewed on a >>>>> reference monitor having the reference decoding function of Recommendation >>>>> ITU-R BT.1886, in the reference viewing environment defined in >>>>> Recommendation ITU-R BT.2035." >>>>> >>>>> and BT.1886 specifies a peak luminance of 100 nits (the standard for >>>>> SDR TV). >>>>> >>>>> For HDR video, we use the BT.2020 color gamut (primaries), with the >>>>> SMPTE ST.2084 Transfer Function (PQ) which specifies mapping from quantized >>>>> tristimulus values to absolute luminance (from 0 to 10,000nits). >>>>> >>>>> So, I still have the problem that specifying "rec2020" or "dci-p3" in >>>>> CSS does not tell me how the luminance of those pixel values should be >>>>> rendered relative to the luminance of "srgb". Indeed, if I look at Section >>>>> 10.2, it specifies the mappings associated with these color spaces to a >>>>> linear [ 0, 1 ] space. A natural assumption is that all three have the same >>>>> peak luminance (whatever you map 1.0 to, determined by the brightness >>>>> control on the display). >>>>> >>>>> I do see that ICC profiles can include a luminanceTag field, >>>>> specifying "absolute luminance of emissive devices in candelas per square >>>>> metre as described by the Y channel". So perhaps what I am looking for is a >>>>> variant of the "rec2020" profile with this luminanceTag set to 10,000 and >>>>> somehow specifying the PQ transfer function instead of the one in BT.2020. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I'm unsure about the video case. For images and artwork, all the >>>> information you need should be covered by the ICC workflow. >>>> >>>> If you want, I can put you in touch with one of our color experts since >>>> they are more familiar with the details. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, that would be great, thanks. But I would also like an opportunity >>> to discuss the problem with the wider CSS group. At a minimum, even if >>> profiles solve this, the specification is unclear as to what the rec2020 >>> profile refers to, since the 2020 colorspace is used for both SDR and HDR >>> in video. >>> >> >> I got a reply from our color people: >> >> [snip] >> >> iMac now supports HDR, with a peak of 500 nits. >> >> Classic SDR content is not mapped to 500 nits. >> Instead it maps to a brightness set by the user, often around 200 nits. >> Classic SDR content includes all legacy apps, such as Safari, MS Word, >> email… >> For these apps, MacOS maps their diffuse white (1.0, 255 etc) to this >> 200 nit setting. >> >> In order to display HDR content above 200 nits, an app must produce frame >> buffer values > 1.0. >> Classic apps don’t know how to do that. >> >> HDR aware apps know that the peak of all non-HDR color spaces (sRGB, >> BT.2020…) should be mapped to 1.0, which OS maps to 200 nits. >> And for HDR spaces, they know that the diffuse white point in the HDR >> space is also mapped to 1.0. >> The diffuse white point for PQ-encoding is at 100-200 nits, not max code >> value. >> AFAIK both Apple and Msft maps PQ for 100 nits to diffuse white. >> >> If you want something brighter than sRGB white, then use a proper HDR >> color space. >> BT.2020 is not an HDR space. >> HDR10 is an HDR space, with same primaries as BT.2020. >> >> >> If you combine this with Simon Fraser's email: >> >> Compositing happens in 10-bit or half-float textures which may contain < >> 0 or > 1 values. A P3 image is mapped into this unclipped sRGB space for >> compositing, then the final result is mapped into Display-P3 at the end. >> >> then it looks that if you can tag something with HDR10 and the color >> values are high enough, the result will be brighter than than 200 nits at >> least on system that support HDR. (The unclipped sRGB space does sound a >> bit weird.) >> >>> >>> >>>> I just use profiles as a black box. 😀 >>>> >>> >>> The full power of iCC profiles may solve this. But what seems unclear >>> to me is whether the profiles defined in CSS (sRGB, rec2020, dci-p3) are >>> well enough defined for it to be clear how their luminance ranges should be >>> mapped to actual physical luminance, *relative to each other*. >>> >>> For example, whilst sRGB, at least as defined in [1], defines peak white >>> to be 80nits, BT.2020 (as I noted above) does not specify a peak luminance >>> and at least with video is used with different transfer functions with peak >>> luminance 100nits (SDR) or 10,000nits (HDR with PQ). So, what does it mean >>> when you specify rec2020 in CSS ? And, if it means 100nits, because 2020 >>> notes that this is a "typical" usage, how do I specify a profile where 2020 >>> colorspace is used with 10,000nits peak ? Do implementations *actually* >>> map the 2020 luminance range to 125% of the sRGB range and is that even the >>> right thing to do ? >>> >>> (and this is before we even start talking about how video metadata can >>> influence tone mapping and how one might be able to get the same tone >>> mapping applied to graphics / images). >>> >>> If there is not time on the CSS agenda (which is see is rather full) for >>> this, I wonder if there would be interest in a break-out session on >>> Wednesday ? >>> >> >> We could. The hard part would be to track down the experts. It's easy to >> get confused by all the different color standards. >> Your questions seem more about quality of implementation than the w3c >> color specification. >> >> >> I think your answer above demonstrates that there is a spec issue, not >> just quality-of-implementation issues, since it is by no means clear from >> the specification that the approach taken by Apple is the only one. >> > > Currently, the spec chooses not to specify how a document should be > rendered. This could be added once implementations and other specs (such as > ICC) progress. > > However, if you follow the proposed color spec and tag everything the way > you'd like it to render, the ICC conversions will give you the best output > per the current output device. > > > I think it's still under specified, as I explained above. Specifically the > relative luminance of SDR and HDR color spaces as well as the issue below > which you seem to agree with. > > > > >> The approach described above - where the value 1.0 always means the same >> thing independent of color space, seems reasonable, but also it would be >> reasonable that if a color is tagged as being from an HDR space that the >> peak white of that space is also 1.0. >> > > Yes, that would be nice. > > >> The question of what luminance value in an HDR space should be mapped to >> the same as sRGB diffuse white (the 1.0 value) is not answered in the HDR >> specifications I am aware of. >> >> Also, it would be nice to have a shorthand for 2020 color primaries used >> with an HDR transfer function, for example as defined in BT.2100 with PQ. >> > > These 3 issues are about HDR ICC profiles; not with the CSS color spec or > anything that is controlled by w3c. > > > I disagree. The first issue is relevant wherever you have compositing of > data specified in multiple color spaces, SDR and HDR. The relative > luminance mapping needs to be defined somewhere and I would expect each > environment where this can happen to do so (and CSS is one such > environment). > > The other issue is a straightforward request for CSS to define a shorthand > for a specific HDR color space, as has been done for sRGB and 2020 in the > color spec. This is certainly in scope. > > Maybe you should take this up with that organization? > > > >> These issues at least deserve discussion. >> > > Yes. Let's have a meeting on Wednesday morning. Leonard is familiar with > this ares and agreed to attend. > > >> >>> [1] https://www.w3.org/Graphics/Color/srgb >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> If more is needed than what is already specked, we can bring it back to >>>> the list. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I will be at TPAC next week as well so maybe we can have a short >>>>>>> get-together. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the WICG is the appropriate place to raise these problems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can do >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that, but the experts are in CSS WG so I wondered if there was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest in learning about these issues. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks ... Mark >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-color/#color-type >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-color/#icc-colors >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-color/#at-profile >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2016 12:30:49 UTC