On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 11:54:32 -0600 Alex Hung <alex.h...@amd.com> wrote:
> On 8/21/25 06:23, Xaver Hugl wrote: > >> We user space folks have been convinced at this point that the sRGB EOTF > >> is actually gamma 2.2, and not the piece-wise function. Now, if the > >> hardware is actually the piece-wise, then that's what should be exposed, > >> but I'm a bit unsure if we should do that under the name sRGB EOTF. > > Maybe simply rename the enum string to "sRGB piece-wise EOTF"? In > > hindsight, the naming of "srgb" in the Wayland protocol caused a lot > > of confusion, it's better to be explicit about it where possible. > > I will leave this to Harry to comment. He is taking a few days off so I > will check with him later. > "sRGB inverse OETF"? Strictly speaking "sRGB piece-wise EOTF" is not a thing AFAIU. Thanks, pq
pgpKXScLOqM0c.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
