- From: Chris Lilley <Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr>
- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:38:44 +0100 (MET)
- To: Todd Fahrner <fahrner@pobox.com>, Taylor <taylor@hotwired.com>, Chris Josephs <cpj1@visi.com>, www-style@www10.w3.org
On Feb 1, 5:21pm, Todd Fahrner wrote:
> If not, then it's WYSIWIM
> ("what-you-see-is-what-I-might")
Another delightful acronym to add to my list.
> Absolute positioning is possible today with GIFs and tables
> (cf. NetObjects Fusion), but this printlike capability is a mixed
> blessing at best.
Nicely put. 'Printlike' captures the dependence on aspect ratio and
resolution quite well.
> PDF is at least resolution-independent.
Only to the extent that PostScript is. Once can have a PDF optimised for
screen viewing which will print quite poorly, and of course one sees PDF
all the time whose images are optimised for 600-1200dpi 4color printing
and which provides acceptable 'print previewing' but is poorly optimised
for being an actual online document.
PDF is a great way to capture paper-based layout and to transmit it for
remote preview and print. But it is of course aspect ratio dependent.
> Note that
> the frames-based proposal could accommodate flows in areas whose height and
> width was relative to the total rendering area.
Precisely. Resize the window and you don't see a scrollbar or a big white
margin, you see a document. A step towards allowing real design for online
documents.
--
Chris Lilley, W3C [ http://www.w3.org/ ]
Graphics and Fonts Guy The World Wide Web Consortium
http://www.w3.org/people/chris/ INRIA, Projet W3C
chris@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
+33 (0)4 93 65 79 87 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Monday, 3 February 1997 11:39:53 UTC