[Openicc] List Scope

[Graeme Gill]

Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Graeme Gill wrote:
>>
>> 1) I wouldn't call the discussions "low level" (apart perhaps
>>    from Robert cross posting some Gimp specific setup details).
> 
> Dithering algorithms for ink dots on paper are low level.

Not to me they aren't. We're not talking code details here,
we're talking broad brush stuff about different approaches,
and how they interact with an overall color architecture.
How to implement a particular approach I would agree is low level.

But I guess if the general consensus is that such discussions
are too technical and low level for this list, then there
is a simple solution, and that is that it's time to start
a mailing list for those interested in discussing color
in open software, where discussions about standards,
interoperability and technical details can be discussed
to a level that will allow some progress.

I'd suggest that it be called "OpenColor", and I'm
quite happy to see if I can have such a list created
at freelists.org (or if someone else has a suggestion
of a suitable host that would be fine too - a source forge project
perhaps ?).

As soon as it's created we can shift all this to that list,
and leave openicc in peace.

> I agree that the list is usually quiet.  It is a clear problem is that 
> there is insufficent representation here from people outside of 
> hard-core color science and printing.  It is quite excellent that you 
> are here, yet it is also unfortunate that the type of people who would 
> bring your excellent work to the "common man" don't seem to be here any 
> more, or perhaps they are not really heard (Kai-Uwe?).  It is not 
> sufficient that color management is supported by specific applications 
> since color management needs to be ingrained in the system using 
> standard mechanisms and well supported throughout all applications which 
> use color.

Hmm. As far as I can tell, the people who might move color in open systems
along are certainly not here, and have never been here: they would be the
business people who make money out of open systems (Red Hat ? IBM ? Novel ?
Sun ? HP ? TrollTech ?). If they were seriously interested in challenging
MSWindows and OS X as desktop platforms then they'd be prepared to
fund software development of a color sub-system for open systems.
It is clear that their priorities lie elsewhere (servers only
it appears). So instead such work proceeds at it's own pace, as
people work on this sort of thing in their spare time, as spin offs
from other projects, or out of the goodness of their hearts. Naturally
it's a slow process, and has barely begun at a time when commercial
alternatives have completed their second generation sub-systems (WCS).

Technically, creating an open resource to manage color for
all applications has never been that big a challenge as far as I
can see - the models for what is needed are out there (ColorSync, WCS etc.),
and the mechanisms to implement them exist (lcms, Argyll etc.). I've
certainly architect and/or implemented similar systems in the past.

But since there is no direct resourcing of such an effort, people
working on things at their own discretion will tend to scratch
their own itch first, and do stuff for the common good a bit latter.
In such circumstances, encouraging some active discussions is vital.
I (and others) thought that perhaps we'd finally got a critical mass of
people and interest in this forum for things to pick up pace a little,
and that in the face of trying to solve real problems, solutions
and standards would emerge. But there's nothing like a bucket of cold
water (in the form of criticism that this forum is not the place to
hold such discussions) to slow things down again!

> The freedesktop organization is organized in order to try to extract 
> some commonality from otherwise competing groups while recognizing that 
> all groups are important according to their own measure of success.  
> Visit http://www.freedesktop.org/ to see what it is all about.  Check 
> out the list of standards and software.  I notice that Oyranos is listed 
> in the Software section, but Argyll and Little CMS are not mentioned.  
> While it is likely that some listed specifications include interfaces 
> necessary to support color management, I do not see a specification from 
> this group listed to provide a standard way to provide color management 
> in the freedesktop environment.

I suspect you've largely missed the boat on this one. The time for a top
down approach was a few years ago, before applications that need color
managements solved the problems themselves (Scribus, Gimp etc). I certainly
offered at that time to put my experience and code to work, but there seemed
little interest, and I have had to work on projects that might make me
a living instead. It seems likely now that such standardisation will have
to emerge more organically and bottom up, out of the effort to actually make
things work together a bit more smoothly together.

> That would be going too far the other way.  It is a problem that color 
> management is too balkanized already.  We need more discussion of how to 
> incorporate color management so that it is readily available to users so 
> that open source can usefully compete with Microsoft Windows and Apple's 
> OS-X.

There seems little serious interest in this. Lots of "nice to have",
but no serious application of resources. Kai-Uwe has valiantly
fought ahead with Oyranos, but things will proceed much as they
have done when it's all being done by volunteers in their spare time.

Killing off the some of the first signs of activity and animation
in this mailing list, certainly hasn't helped much.

Graeme Gill.