Re: wherefore CGM?

David Perrell (davidp@earthlink.net)
Sat, 7 Dec 1996 19:32:01 -0800


Message-Id: <199612080335.TAA09979@iberia.it.earthlink.net>
From: "David Perrell" <davidp@earthlink.net>
To: <www-html@w3.org>, "Walter Ian Kaye" <walter@natural-innovations.com>
Subject: Re: wherefore CGM?
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 19:32:01 -0800

Walter Ian Kaye wrote:
> formats to support those ultra-high resolution screens. Or must we
throw
> away all existing bitmap graphics and redo everything as vector art? 

There may be a yet-to-be-designed compression scheme that edge-detects
a noisy bitmap into shapes and applies some kind of compression optimal
for the shape's content. That would eliminate the annoying JPEG
artifacts in areas of flat color. But it would be silly to convert a
photo into vector graphics. Every pixel could be a separate object.
Fractal compression looks promising for resizable bitmaps, since it
doesn't pixelate when resized (it just gets 'softer').

> Perhaps someday all existing OS's will be gone -- 

A transition to vector-based icons could be done smoothly. As long as
each application used all vector or all bitmap icons.

> ... a 64-bit Unicode
> to handle languages from extraterrestrials. :)

That reminds me of a couple of pages I found in a Unicode search:
proposals for allocating Unicode sequences to Celtic Ogham and N.
European Runes. Should be done, IMO.

David Perrell