I’m afraid so, but this is representative of 97% of the programmers that work in the computer graphics area. For most computer people “RGB” is “RGB”.
Part of the problem is that it’s not clear what the scope of Wayland is. A lot of the Waland developers view it as fairly low level nuts and bolts, and so it is not the place for application specific concerns and complexity such as Color Management. But on the other hand they have completely disrupted the established UNIX/Linux graphics API (X11), without fully replacing all it’s key functionality (such as CM support, VideoLUT access, or network transparency etc.). This is understandable from the development point of view of taking one bite at a time, as well as the anarchic nature of open source development, but from the point of view of the overall health of the Linux/Free operating system desktop it is rather myopic, and worsens the Linux desktop ABI/API fragmentation problem that is the main thing that holds it back.
They have the (quite reasonable) view that in time all the missing bits will be restored, but my main concern is that because Wayland was architected without any consideration CM, that they may have made fundamental architectural decisions that make it impractical or even impossible.
I’m a bit at a loss. Only one developer on the Wayland dev list seemed color savvy (Niels Ole Salscheider), and a vocal number of them seem overly sure they know everything they need to know about computer graphics.
One of the problems is that in programming, social form follows technical function (and visa-versa), and Wayland changes the boundaries within the application GUI stack. Prior to Wayland, applications could use the X11 API directly, although most use a GUI library front end for ease and speed of development. With Wayland, it’s not really practical for an application to be written directly to Wayland, at least not without some sort of rendering library to do the hard work. So even more than before, application writers will be dealing with the vendor of GUI library (Qt, GTK etc.), and it is they who deal with Wayland. So the process of providing user feedback is quite long: End User -> Application Developers -> GUI toolkit Developers -> Wayland developers. Since the GUI toolkit developers have made the switch of their back end from X11 to Wayland as transparent as possible, many End Users and Application Developers are not yet aware of any problems, at least until they fire up a new Linux distro running Wayaland + XWayland, and notice their CM or CM tools has stopped working. (And if you have one screen and are using Gnome/colord, you may not notice until you want to calibrate & profile). And given this apparently smooth changeover, it’s understandable that most Wayland developers don’t think there’s a problem.