or the results are unpredictable
The idea is that you are responsible for configuring, calibrating, and characterizing the colour devices over which you have complete control.
For the studio photographer, it is the colour scanner, the colour camera, the colour display and the colour proof-printer / colour presentation-printer.
For the studio typographer, it is the colour display and the colour proof-printer / colour presentation-printer.
In a matching session, from the minute you start your scan you can preview what colours the printing condition will provide - if the press does not drift from that printing condition.
Does this work as such? Yes. Does this work if the photographer, the typographer or the lithographer at the press do not understand how a colour matching session is set up. No. Does this work without costly hardware and software, and without complex configuration. No. (Does this work without spot colour? Oh, yes -:)). The ticket into a colour managed process is the cost of a production Mac - a measuring instrument and software come at a considerable cost. Same with a professional smart font - whether as a family of fonts for specific sizes or as a single smart scalable font.
Just as I can quote Ron Gentile of Adobe to you from April 1992, and further on the advantage that no cap is put on the gamut of device colour spaces in the ICC architecture, I can quote Perry Caro of Adobe to you from September 1992 saying that the advantage of ASCII is that content and appearance are essentially the same, and urging that a cap be placed on the glyph space gamut in Apple TrueType. Caro cites a technically obsolete, but not recalled, standard on the glyph space gamut: ISO 9541 for Adobe Type 1. I have it here, believe it or not.
/hh