Re: Netscape and <FRAMESET>

David Perrell (davidp@earthlink.net)
Thu, 23 Jan 1997 11:18:26 -0800


Message-Id: <199701231925.LAA00883@armenia.it.earthlink.net>
From: "David Perrell" <davidp@earthlink.net>
To: "Peter Flynn" <pflynn@curia.ucc.ie>, <www-html@www10.w3.org>
Subject: Re: Netscape and <FRAMESET>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 11:18:26 -0800

Peter Flynn wrote:
> No, but a very frequent occurrence is big GIFs with fixed widths in
> pixels, designed to look good at 800x600 and above, but which run off
> the RH edge of the screen at lower rez. Doing it with %ages at least
> allows it to fit comfortably.

Twould be nice if browsers could be relied on to interpolate smoothly
when resizing images. With pre-dithered 8-bit GIFs that's not possible,
as even minor size adjustments screw up the dither pattern. In any
case, images need to be in unpalettized form for smooth interpolation,
so an 8-bit image would typically be converted to 24-bit for resizing.

I'd like to see a background image option that forces one image to
occupy the entire width or height of the client display window. I'd
also like to be able to use a smoothly resizable vector graphic, such
as a CGM file, for such backgrounds. Given the lesser bandwidth
requirements of vector vs bitmap, I'm surprised some vector format
wasn't standardized years ago.

Back to Netscape frames: no one provided an algorithm with which to
compute rendered height and width relative to specified height and
width. And is the error consistent across platforms? I very much hope
NS gets this discrepancy fixed in version 4.

BTW, did you note the send date on my message (12 Nov 96)? Apparently
the message fell out of an overloaded mail server and lay on the
computer room floor until spotted by an observant maintenance person.

David