- From: Walter Ian Kaye <walter@natural-innovations.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 08:52:00 -0800
- To: <www-html@w3.org>, <www-style@w3.org>
At 1:52p +0000 12/01/97, Clive Bruton wrote: >As a further comparison I'd consider PDF to be everything an EPS is (and >more) without some of the above noted overheads, so grabbing some info >that I just happen to have to hand: > > EPS 182k Contains several complicated shapes, colour > and layer info, as well as a header. > > PDF 28k Essentially the raw shapes > > >Thus I'd suggest that PDF and CGM are better comparisons, than EPS and >CGM. True. In fact, PDF is designed to be the successor to EPS. ____________________________________________________________________________ Walter Ian Kaye <boo@SLAC.Stanford.EDU> Menlo Park, CA Perl on Unix, AppleScript on MacOS, at the nation's first WWW server. More good stuff at my <http://www.natural-innovations.com/> site.
Received on Monday, 1 December 1997 12:03:28 UTC