- From: Robert Rothenberg <wlkngowl@unix.asb.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 02:02:39 -0400
- To: "James Aylett" <dj@insigma.com>
- CC: "www-html@w3.org" <www-html@w3.org>
On 8 Sep 98, James Aylett wrote: > A question which is perhaps relevant here is: what are the bounds on the > sizes of images using the current popular file formats? Good question. Off the top of my head (without specs in front of me) I'm guessing the theoretical limits of the standard raster formats are either 2^16 by 2^16 or 2^32 by 2^32. The lowest of these is still way beyond the capabilities of most screens and printers. A separate question: do the most popular UAs crash and burn on such huge images or simply refuse to display them as if they were damaged or invalid files? The best way to address this is to recommend certain practical limits based on current usage... even though HTML is device independent, it's not good practice to use images beyond 800x600 for instance. However, vector formats have no theoretical limits.... wait a minute: how would area coordinates be defined for a vector image? -1.0..1.0 x -1.0..1.0? Or use percentages? (I've heard that IBM has an experimental 300dpi monitor; if such equipment becomes standard, a scalable image format for use on the web is going to become very important.) Rob
Received on Saturday, 3 October 1998 02:02:53 UTC