- From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 10:26:44 -0400 (EDT)
- To: jw@scitsc.wlv.ac.uk (Jon Wallis)
- Cc: www-html@www10.w3.org
> > * 8-bit (256 color) images (can link to 24-bit if desired) > > * 72-dpi resolution (can link to high-res if desired) > > * Reasonable image sizes, like max 470 pixels wide for > > title graphics and navbars (again, can link if desired) > > This also ensures that images will fit without scrolling > > within default window sizes of Mosaic and Netscape browsers > > on typical 13-15" monitors (it defaults to same width on my > > 17" monitor, as a matter of fact) > [snip] > > This all seems to be getting out-of-hand - HTML is now getting so complex > (by comparison with HTML "1" anyway) that it is no longer fulfilling its > original purpose (or at least it's harder to see the wood for the trees). HTML is a markup language for hypertext documents. It happens to allow figures of various types. The above complex discussion of image sizes has almost nothing to do with HTML. The complexity of making pictures available in a format that is friendly to a wide variety of platforms is not a problem HTML can solve. > I think most of the action *should* be server-side (i.e., only send what the > browser wants or can handle), but this requires a start-up dialog between > browser and server to establish what the browser *can* handle (not too > difficult to establish). HTTP allows for format negotiation. I do not believe that the popular browsers implement it, however. Paul Prescod
Received on Monday, 26 June 1995 11:44:05 UTC