Of course. They wanted sRGB to be perceived as "the standard" so they
arranged the language to support that notion. A "standard" really
didn't exist until the IEC establishment of IEC 61966 in 1999-2000.
Creating the notion of a standard has been a strategy to promote
business interests for a long time... ;-)
Here are a couple of papers showing what sRGB was designed to
model ... the gamut rendering capabilities of the hardware available
at that time:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/Color/sRGB (1996)
http://www.srgb.com/srgbcolorspacepaper.pdf (1999)
Godfrey
On Dec 21, 2005, at 9:09 AM, Powell Hargrave wrote:
Very interesting.
I guess HP and MS sanitised the name to "standard" as there are
several
references to that use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRGB_color_space
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=sRGB&i=51922,00.asp
http://www.techterms.org/definition/srgb
Should we start a campaign to get it back to "small" where it
should be?
Powell
sRGB was an collaborative effort between HP and Microsoft from the
mid1990s. One of my friends was on that effort, and was in charge of
the naming work, and HE named it for "small gamut RGB". No matter
what wikipedia has to say about it, or even the official documents,
that is what it was named for.
Godfrey
