Re: wherefore CGM?

David Perrell (davidp@earthlink.net)
Thu, 5 Dec 1996 15:52:56 -0800


Message-Id: <199612052355.PAA20674@lithuania.it.earthlink.net>
From: "David Perrell" <davidp@earthlink.net>
To: "Michael H. Lambert" <lambert@psc.edu>
Cc: "HTML" <www-html@w3.org>, <andrews@psc.edu>
Subject: Re: wherefore CGM? 
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 15:52:56 -0800

Michael H. Lambert wrote:
> I think it would be useful, but I wonder if people raised on 24-bit
color
> depth raster graphics see any need for vector graphics.

Maybe it's a matter of education. Win95 antialiases screen fonts, and
the new ATM is doing the same. There's no reason antialiasing can't be
applied to any vector drawing. This would allow high quality inline
logos and icons to be sized relative to the text, without the loss of
quality that occurs when bitmaps are resized. Vector graphics are a
natural for CSS1, where everything can be sized in percentages, points,
or ems.

Many GIFs on the WWW would be better as vector graphics, both quality-
and size-wise.

Hopefully, someday, GUIs will store icons as vector graphics, and size
them according to display size and resolution. Have you ever tried to
decipher fixed-size bitmap icons on a 1600 x 1200 display?

David Perrell