Previews, as seen when this build job started (bbb469e):
WebGPU _{webgpu.idl | Explainer | Correspondence Reference}
WGSL _{grammar.js | wgsl.lalr.txt}

Fixes #4239

FYI I added this to the PR summary to link the issue. Is it correct that landing this would fix/close that issue?

Fixes #4239

FYI I added this to the PR summary to link the issue. Is it correct that landing this would fix/close that issue?

Yes, thanks!

Fixes #4239

FYI I added this to the PR summary to link the issue. Is it correct that landing this would fix/close that issue?

Yes!

Friendly review bump @kdashg @mwyrzykowski

Friendly review bump @kdashg @mwyrzykowski

Sorry! It looks good, I forgot to click approve 👍

@ccameron-chromium let me know that CSS is hotly debating gamut mapping right now, and we may need to be less prescriptive in this spec lest we contradict what CSS eventually does. I've converted this to draft so it can't be landed accidentally.

@ccameron-chromium let me know that CSS is hotly debating gamut mapping right now, and we may need to be less prescriptive in this spec lest we contradict what CSS eventually does. I've converted this to draft so it can't be landed accidentally.

We had originally called the modes "default" and "extended", and then made them more descriptive by calling them "clamp-to-standard" and "clamp-to-extended". While this accurately describes the current behavior on all browsers (as did PR 4400), I think we shouldn't be so explicit in the names of the enums.

The core behavior that we want to capture is that

• in the "standard" behavior, no colors in the SDR gamut of the display will be altered, and all colors outside of the SDR gamut will be projected onto the gamut broder
• in the "extended" behavior, the same thing, except for the HDR gamut

I could imagine changing the names to "project-to-standard" and "project-to-extended", or just sticking with "standard" and "extended". The behavior of clamping is a projection (the L-infinity error minimizing one, for what that's worth). If there a preference between these two name schemes?

I probably should have put this on the agenda for today's meeting, but didn't think about it. We're probably not having another WG meeting for 3 weeks but that should be OK.

I've put this on the editors' agenda for this coming Monday so we can talk about naming and then try to get reapproval.

@kdashg @mwyrzykowski could you re-review with the loosened wording and new naming?

@kdashg review bump!

@kdashg, others, review bump!

To force progress, given that it's a minor revision on an agreed upon version, unless there are new comments to address, we should merge this in two weeks (on 2024-07-04) to finally get to an end state.