W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 1998

RE: the whole pixel size dilema

From: Benjamin Hardcastle <benjaminh@epic.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 10:24:25 -0000
To: <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000601be2d95$3fa97600$e0050180@titan.graphics.epic.co.uk>
> that IE3,4, or 5 will not scale pixels in raster artwork and HTML elements
> such as tables when the logical resolution of the system is set to 120dpi
> or "large fonts". It should scale by 25%).
>
Graphics only scale well when you have a scaling factor of multiples of 100%. If
you were to scale by 125% do you interpolate the extra pixels? Do you do
nearest-neighbour? Think of how that would affect a simple shape such as a
circle. You would either get a blurred image (interpolation) or discontinuities
in the image (nearest-neighbour). Of course, this is all fine if the image is a
vector one rather than raster. How much burden can a UA take? After all, it
would have to do some form of conversion on the image to scale it. For
interpolation, the UA would have to convert to 16 or 24 bit to scale properly.

Designers would resort to setting everything to a form of "fixed" so that their
images are not completely ruined by the UA.

Benjamin
Received on Tuesday, 22 December 1998 05:29:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:56 GMT