<font size=2 face="sans-serif">Chris Lilley,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">If you please, I would appreciate
an opportunity to </font><tt><font size=2>"comment on the spec where
the actual colour management stuff is?</font></tt><font size=2 face="sans-serif">"</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Will you be able to send me that spec?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Best regards,<br>
Ann McCarthy<br>
ICC Steering Committee</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">ICC Automated Workflow WG Chair</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Image Science R&D</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Lexmark International, Inc.<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org></b>
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: openicc-bounces+almccart=lexmark.com@lists.freedesktop.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">02/12/2011 02:21 PM</font>
<table border>
<tr valign=top>
<td bgcolor=white>
<div align=center><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to<br>
Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>; Please respond to<br>
Open ICC Color Managment <openicc@lists.freedesktop.org></font></div></table>
<br>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Chris Murphy <lists@colorremedies.com></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Open ICC Color Managment <openicc@lists.freedesktop.org></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: [Openicc] ISO - Open vs. Free (was
Linux CM ideology)</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>On Saturday, February 12, 2011, 1:44:14 AM, Chris
wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
CM> On Feb 11, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Chris Lilley wrote:<br>
<br>
>> Small correction - W3C charges for Membership, yes. <br>
<br>
>> Comments are solicited and accepted from the Public at all stages
of standard development. without charge (your comment seemsd to indicate
that all participation at W3C was subject to a charge which, as you well
know, is not correct).<br>
<br>
CM> I will agree with Leonard's comments. I commented a number of<br>
CM> times on CSS2 and then CSS3 long time ago on the very antiquated<br>
CM> section on gamma for various operating systems, and also on the<br>
CM> proposed tags for CSS3 that would have allowed tagging without<br>
CM> embedding, and how that needed to be cleaned up a bit. Nothing<br>
CM> happened. No one changed anything.<br>
<br>
That is incorrect; the section on gamma for various operating systems was
removed from the spec, due to your (and other's) comments.<br>
<br>
CM> No one really said anything. No<br>
CM> one seemed to understand what I was saying. <br>
<br>
The CSS WG uses the same list for public comments and also for general
public discussion. Personally I consider this a mistake, because comments
like yours can be responded to by anyone from the public (and the public
typically has few ideas on color management, most of them incorrect).<br>
<br>
CM> And then finally after<br>
CM> some time I mentioned it all again for CSS3 and what I was told<br>
CM> was basically it was too late. They were pulling all of the color<br>
CM> tags out of CSS3 because no browsers had implemented support for<br>
CM> them, and yet they weren't removing the b.s. gamma section even<br>
CM> though that has never been implemented by browsers either, and is<br>
CM> also factually untrue, and not good advice anyway.<br>
<br>
As mentioned, the gamma section was removed.<br>
<br>
Yes, the part of overriding the rendering intent of embedded images in
profiles was removed. It wasn't implemented and probably wasn't a good
idea, either.<br>
<br>
CM> So what's old, wrong, and not implemented is what's in CSS3. What<br>
CM> could have been useful with modifications, went no where.<br>
<br>
Both statements incorrect.<br>
<br>
The gamma stuff was pulled from CSS *2.1*, not 3.<br>
<br>
The stuff that could be useful with modifications was modified and did
go somewhere.<br>
<br>
CM> So from my perspective, this expert's advice for the W3C totally<br>
CM> fell on deaf ears. <br>
<br>
I'm sorry if you didn't get good feedback from your comments. But they
did have an effect, even if belatedly (I only got involved with CSS again
a couple of years ago).<br>
<br>
CM> And considering it takes epochs for the W3C to<br>
CM> get things done, it might be 20 years before there's another<br>
CM> opportunity for a CSS3.5 or 4 the properly accounts for color.<br>
<br>
Since 'getting things done' implies having a test suite and demonstrating
that at least two implementations pass each test, yes, it can take a while
to get to the final standard.<br>
<br>
Chris, has your earlier experience with W3C soured you to commenting again,
or should I invite you to comment on the spec where the actual colour management
stuff is?<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain
<br>
W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead<br>
Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG<br>
Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
openicc mailing list<br>
openicc@lists.freedesktop.org<br>
</font></tt><a href=http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openicc><tt><font size=2>http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openicc</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>
</font></tt>
<br>