On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote: > On 5/11/10 4:59 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Perry Smith<pedz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Well, my take is just the opposite. Portability should dictate only if >>> the >>> user wants portability. I don't believe we confine what colors can be >>> picked based upon what is portable. >> >> Actually... some machines can display colors with rgb values outside >> of the [0,255] range. But CSS clamps you to that range because it's >> portable. > > CSS clamps to [0,255]? Since when? > http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#rgb-color says: > > Values outside the device gamut should be clipped or mapped into > the gamut when the gamut is known: the red, green, and blue values > must be changed to fall within the range supported by the device. > User agents may perform higher quality mapping of colors from one > gamut to another. This specification does not define precise > clipping behavior. > ... > Other devices, such as printers, have different gamuts than sRGB; > some colors outside the 0..255 sRGB range will be representable > (inside the device gamut), while other colors inside the 0..255 > sRGB range will be outside the device gamut and will thus be mapped. > > There is then an example that says that on an sRGB device rgb(300,0,0) will > be the same as rgb(255,0,0)... but on a non-sRGB device they may well not > be.
This is why I should read more closely, dammit. ~TJ