- From: David Norris <kg9ae@geocities.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:35:19 -0500
- To: <www-html@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Microsoft has vector graphics support implemented in Internet Explorer 4. The image is created as an object and has a parameter that contains vector information. I believe they included a Windows Metafile converter in the MS Internet SDK 4. I never really looked into it. It seems like a good idea to provide some level of vector support in HTML or a closely related standard. Simple illustrations would greatly benefit from this. And, it should scale to more complex graphics well. ,David Norris World Wide Web - http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1652/ My Home's Web - http://kg9ae.dyn.ml.org/ ICQ Universal Internet Number - 412039 E-Mail - kg9ae@geocities.com -----Original Message----- From: Braden N. McDaniel <braden@shadow.net> To: 'Andrew n marshall' <amarshal@usc.edu>; www-html@w3.org <www-html@w3.org> Cc: www-style@w3.org <www-style@w3.org> Date: Tuesday, November 25, 1997 1:07 AM Subject: RE: Support for Vector Images > -----Original Message----- > From: www-style-request@w3.org [SMTP:www-style-request@w3.org]On Behalf > Of Andrew n marshall > Sent: Monday, November 24, 1997 10:58 PM > To: 'www-html@w3.org' > Cc: 'www-style@w3.org' > Subject: Support for Vector Images > > > > I would greatly appreciate the W3C to include a recommendation for > vector-based images for HTML. Personally I would prefer this to be a > monochromatic format that could be rendered in the foreground color (great > opportunity for scripts!!). EPS files come to mind as a quick and easy > solution to this problem, although I'm not an expert in the pros and cons > of image formats. > > The other request that goes along side this is vector-based clipping paths. > I know this is a nasty request, and I also realize it is specific to the > visual rendering, especially text flows. I honestly don't expect anything > out of this. Perhaps there is a better place for this in CSS. I think CGM is the obvious choice--largely because it is an ISO standard. Is it the *best* choice? I don't know; but being free from ownership by any particular company is certainly a big plus. I believe there has been intermittent grumbling about the lack of support for CGM in Web browsers for some time now. Would a formal plea from the W3C help things? I don't know, but I'm inclined to doubt it. Braden
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 1997 12:34:57 UTC