Re: style sheet scalability (was: Specifying style notation in <link>)
> > > Can an IMG have a "note" attached to indicate (1)its intended dots per
> > > inch, and (2)whether non-integral (i.e., other than 100%, 200%, 300%...)
> > > scaling should be allowed?
> > 1) any element can have a suggested width [...]
> > Using a width property is more general than dpi which is only
> > useful for images.
> But images were the original subject of enquiry.
So? Since 'width' lets you express the same thing, why no keep it
> > > My 72dpi title graphics come out "tiny" (so I'm told) on 100dpi monitors,
> > > and I'm wondering if there's any way to keep bitmaps and text more in sync
> > > with each other.
> > The "magnification" property will help here. By changing one property,
> > the user (or author) can scale all length properies by a certain
> > factor.
> But this will keep the too-small or too-large images in synch with the
> text as the magnification factor is altered.
The author should make sure that text and images are balanced from
the start. Thereafter, if only the magnification factor is altered,
they will remain balanced.
[detailed explanation deleted. Read it!]
> What Walter seems to be asking for is control over how much a browser is
> allowed to destroy his images ;-) for example by requiring only integer
> scaling (if scaling is done by pixel replication). If it was using a
> better scaling method, though, the browser could get even better results
> and still use non-integer scaling factors.
> What seems to be needed is a means of specifying the fragility or
> importance of the image. Some images of mine, for example, I don't want
> scaled at all; some images really need 24bit display to see the fine
> detail or the differences between two very similar images.
I think this is beyond initial style sheet specifications and
The introduction of a vector format on the web would make image
scaling a bit easier to swallow. Many of the images you wouldn't want
a UA to scale or dither is better represented as line drawings,
e.g. CGM. Right, Chris?
Hakon W Lie, W3C/INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis, France