Not too happy - overexposed

Propheticus - I think you are spot-on here in your analysis. I believe the increasing use of wider gamut displays may be producing a resurgence of such complaints. Embedding the profile is still best practice in my opinion.

Following standards is the best practice.
Colour-agnostic applications ignoring standards are the problem, not better displays.
Millions and millions of sRGB images are uploaded every day. Multiply by the size of an sRGB profile. How much space and bandwidth is wasted every year?

I don’t consider wide gamut displays to be a problem, far from it. But I do agree that it’s the applications that need to improve. In the meantime I will continue to embed color profiles and hope that the added 100 kb or so burden can somehow be borne.

Why should an RGB profile take up 100 KB?

If the profile has CLUTs as opposed to the matrix-based variety.

What's the advantage of LUTs for an RGB profile?

If that was the basis for your earlier question, I suspect that you know better than I.

You must also know that nearly all profiles of type 'display' are matrix type, about 5 or 10Kb and I don't know why @eriepa is using anything different for posting images on-line.

In v.4 they try to achieve perceptual intent (few sRGB users can create an environment where it works), so 60+KB (while basically 0.5KB is all what is needed for the so-called simplified sRGB).

Yes, I just looked in the profiles folder and found that sRGB_v4_ICC_preference_displayclass.icc is about 60kB.

Last time that I looked, V4 was quite unpopular ...

... off topic but some may not know that a matrix profile's setting of 'perceptual' gets you 'relative colorimetric' in many applications.... theoretically not so with V4.

Thanks, Jim - yes, the profiles for this purpose are much smaller, even tiny. I had given a quick look at my profile folder and my eyes must have landed on printer profiles. Sorry for that. But doesn't the very small size of these profiles help make the case for embedding same?

Not for embedding sRGB. There is a reason why the tag exists, to avoid waste. It's the same reason JPEG exists.

If there are apps that don't honor the tags, sure. Better to have the apps pay attention to the tags, I think.

Now it is clear.

I think the degree of such help is tiny in these days of people whining about e.g. 4Mb upload limits ...

... but, like your good self, I also prefer to embed a profile, always sRGB for on-line publishing and I have my editors so set since I don't print.

if the app ignores the tag what are the chances it will honor the full embedded profile ?

Out of our control, unless it's a known buggy app that can be avoided I suppose.

Sign at the Gate of Hell:

“Abandon all hope, ye who enter here”

“Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate”

Dante Alighieri

I can't figure out how not to embed a profile in Ps:

Both XnView MP and Firefox are colour-aware (colour-managed), still they both display this behaviour. Would you call them both buggy in this regard? Or is the standard perhaps not aimed at picture viewers?
I could be either (and I'm willing to accept either), but to me it reads like the latter in the description of what DCF is for.

And regardless of which it is, I still think the difference in fall-back behaviour (assume sRGB or not) is a good explanation for the differences seen on screen.

Applications that display this behaviour are not properly colour-managed and yes, they are outdated and buggy; and shamefully so.