I don't know how well it's been adopted by the industry as it is an X-Rite initiative, but you can get your answers here:
https://www.xrite.com/categories/digital-color-standards/color-exchange-format-cxf
I had a quick look. My impression is that the industry still is having a tough time trying to pin down the method it should use to communicate colour and I also suspect that this methods is also not going to be optimum. This also relates to Frank Romano's comment a while back about the confusion and complication related to colour.
I have done some thinking about this but I would not say I have any specific solutions but I do think there are potential practical solutions.
One reason I think there is confusion and complication is that the people who are working in this area are colour scientists and they tend to analyze things based on their expertise. Unfortunately, their expertise has little to do with the process of printing or display. So you have the wrong people trying to solve the consistency and predictability of colour in your printing or display processes.
I would say that the heart of the problem is that values used to describe the colour of an image are not described properly for the purpose of obtaining, across many output devices, a practical solution. A solution that is easy to use and is "reasonably" predictable.
Another issue is that people are thinking in terms of past concepts which were related to the limitation of the measurement and computing technologies available. I suggest that there is a better way to come up with a more final practical solution to colour communication and management. Think first in terms of what is the simplest and most effective method to deal with these issues and then think about what technologies are then required.
Get rid of colour spaces, gamuts, viewing conditions etc., when thinking about how to define colour values for an image. When one uses inches or mm to define the dimensions, from some reference point, of a mechanical part, there is no concern that the system of measurement (inches or mm) can go off to infinity. IMO it should be the same way with the measurements of a colour used to define an image.
We should not get too excited about colour accuracy. With measuring the dimensions of a mechanical part, we can be very accurate because inches or mm are basically real values. Values for colour are basically imaginary because they are determined from tests that measured the perception of how people see. Colour does not exist in nature but is only in our minds and different people see colour a bit differently. I am actually surprised at how well the Standard Observer functions reasonably represent how most see colour but one should not expect high accuracy even if instruments imply there is.
Printing and display technologies are physical processes and colour is the outcome. These inner workings of these processes have nothing to do with colour. If the outcome of these processes are consistent, predictable and repeatable, then they can be mapped to connect the input with the colour output. The issues of gamut, viewing conditions and other issues can be dealt with by the method of measuring the output.
It is not too difficult to investigate other methods to communicate and manage colour but it helps to first have a concept that clearly shows it has a chance. The existing technical community does not seem to be able to think in terms of simple, effective and practical solutions and prefer to over complicate methods. They do love to develop standards that don't work too well.
