- From: jonathan chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 17:44:43 +0100
- To: "Jon Hanna" <jon@spin.ie>, "WAI List \(E-mail\)" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
yes but PNG never seemed to really take off, so why? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Hanna" <jon@spin.ie> To: "WAI List (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 5:37 PM Subject: RE: do vector graphics enhance our concept of self? > > > my point was really that jpegs are quite a few years old, and bar > > the silly > > copyright issue, surely someone (in scandinavia?) could bring out a mark 1 > > version with transparency? > > this might degrade quite nicely from SVG. > > IIRC the last JPEG standard was published in 2000, I'm not sure if it can be > used in JFIF though. > > I imagine that it would be quite difficult to reliably provide transparency > information along side JPEGs though. Certainly the mechanism GIF employs > wouldn't be applicable. The only way I can think of right now would be to > provide a transparency (or alpha if you want to go for bonus credit :) mask > with the photograph, and then use a lossless form of compression (presumably > gzip would be preferred over LZW :) on the mask. JFIF allows for > application-specific data to be included, so you could do this in a > backwards compatible manner. > > Just the use of two very different compression formats in the one file > format begins to feel kludgy. > > If someone wants in the US wants to smuggle a Spec that does this across the > Iron Curtain to me here in the Free World I'll publish it on a > you-can-only-patent-inventions-here-so-stick-your-lawsuit webserver, but I > think I'd just use 24-bit PNGs instead. > >
Received on Friday, 26 July 2002 12:44:42 UTC