Re: wherefore CGM?

Walter Ian Kaye (
Thu, 5 Dec 1996 23:02:01 -0800

Message-Id: <v03007802aecd6f7f4a2c@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 23:02:01 -0800
From: Walter Ian Kaye <>
Subject: Re: wherefore CGM?

At 3:52p -0800 12/05/96, David Perrell wrote:
>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.

I think the FutureSplash plug-in support vector graphics, though it is
only available for "certain" platforms... <>

>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?

Let's see... (1600/72) * (5/4) = 27.7" diagonal.
This assumes 72dpi and a 4:3 aspect ratio.
I wouldn't recommend using 1600x1200 on a monitor much smaller than that,
at least not for daily work; only for quick overviews. After all, just cuz
one's video card supports two million pixel resolution doesn't obligate one
to operate at that setting, though I can understand the urge to "get one's
money's worth"... :)

    Walter Ian Kaye <>     Programmer - Excel, AppleScript,
          Mountain View, CA                         ProTERM, FoxPro, HTML     Musician - Guitarist, Songwriter