<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">  <style>  </style> <meta name=qrichtext content=1> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> The ICC is working on providing tests for color management support.  Two web pages have been created that test a browser.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> They are:<o:p></o:p> <a href="http://www.color.org/browsertest.xalter">http://www.color.org/browsertest.xalter</a><o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> and<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <a href="http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter">http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter</a><o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> It would be very helpful if there was an open bug report with a proposed patch.  I would believe that lcms2 should be able to fix both.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> Max Derhak</u1:PersonName><o:p></o:p> Senior Software Architect<o:p></o:p> <a href="mailto:max.derhak@onyxgfx.com">max.derhak@onyxgfx.com</a><o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1> </div> From: openicc-bounces+max.derhak=onyxgfx.com@lists.freedesktop.org [mailto:openicc-bounces+max.derhak=onyxgfx.com@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of Hal V. Engel Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 10:07 PM To: openicc@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [Openicc] compiz-cms/CompICC [was: What is exactly needed...]<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 04:52:02 PM Graeme Gill wrote:<o:p></o:p> > Alastair M. Robinson wrote:<o:p></o:p> > > It's very useful if you want to use a LUT profile (say you want to use<o:p></o:p> > > gamut-mapping on an LCD with poor blacks) but also want Firefox to be<o:p></o:p> > > colour-managed.<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > I'm wondering what would happen if someone submitted a patch<o:p></o:p> > to Firefox that fixes their ICC problems by restoring lcms(2).<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > Is there any way of fighting the bogus claims that lcms is insecure ?<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > Graeme Gill.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> If I remember correctly the supposed lcms security issue was the original reason that was floated for not using lcms in firefox but later there were claims that there were also performance issues with lcms. I know on my system I didn't notice that the versions that used lcms were slower than the subsequent versions that did not but perhaps this was noticable on lower end machines.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I suspect that they would resist "regressing" back to using lcms. But lcms2 is faster than lcms1 and the "security issue" in lcms1 was fixed within hours of being reported and there are absolutely no reports of the "security issue" being exploited. So it was more or less a non-issue.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I don't think it would be difficult to write a patch to revert firefox to lcms2. I think it would put a lot of pressure on them if they had an open bug report about the problems with their internal CM stuff with a patch that fixed it by using lcms2 to either accept the patch and revert to lcms2 or actually fix their own code.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Hal<o:p></o:p> </div> </body> </html>