W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > png-group@w3.org > June 2003

Re: [Fwd: http://www.w3.org/TR/]

From: Glenn Randers-Pehrson <glennrp@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 11:55:47 -0400
To: susan.foord@ntlworld.com
Cc: png-group@w3.org
Message-id: <3EDB7383.71718948@comcast.net>

Vivien Lacourba wrote:
> 
> Hi PNGs,
> 
> Here are some comments about the PNG Specification.
> 
> Regards,
> Vivien
> 
> --
> Vivien Lacourba - W3C Webmaster MIT/LCS
> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: http://www.w3.org/TR/
> Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 09:24:38 -0400
> Resent-From: Vivien Lacourba <vivien@w3.org>
> Resent-To: "web-human@w3.org" <web-human@w3.org>
> Date: 02 Jun 2003 15:25:55 +0200
> From: "Susan Foord" <susan.foord@ntlworld.com>
> Organization: W3C
> To: <web-human@w3.org>
> 
> Hello W3C people
> 
> I had just started reading the PNG specification and in both your current
> document (REC-png) and your new proposed one (2003/PR-PNG-20030520/) there
> is an error in the section describing bit depth of colours: "not the total
> pixel size" should be "not the total bit size" as it has to do with the
> number of bits required to specify the colour value (R, G and B) in a table
> in the file rather than the displayed size of the pixel (eg dpi resolution).
> 
> There may be more errors but I haven't read it all yet! I wanted to know if
> this was even remotely the correct address for reporting such things.
> 
> Susan Foord

Hi, Susan.  You can use "png-group@w3.org" in the future.

I agree that readers might possibly confuse "pixel size" with "resolution".
Your solution looks a little confusing as well.  How about

  "not the total number of bits per pixel" ?

Thanks

Glenn
Received on Monday, 2 June 2003 11:58:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 17 May 2012 12:13:25 GMT