- From: Scott E. Preece <preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 08:41:10 -0600
- To: lilley@afs.mcc.ac.uk
- Cc: Hakon.Lie@sophia.inria.fr, boo@best.com, mseaton@inforamp.net, www-html@w3.org, www-style@w3.org
From: lilley <lilley@afs.mcc.ac.uk> | | Some image formats, such as TIFF and PNG, can give the desired display | dimensions of an image (and by implication, the number of pixels per | inch). Should this size be honoured? | | I would say no, if the browser is going to do a quick and dirty | rescaling job and mess up the image. (Then again browser do quick and | dirty colour reduction jobs and further screw up the image quality, so | why not?) --- While the discussion of image quality is important and needs to be considered in answering the question, it's also important to remember the reason for the original question - many content providers are using images to present pre-formatted text, for image maps, charts, logos, and other cases where they need to work around HTML's inability to control presentation. While the quality of the rendering is probably important to people using images for this purpose, making sure the text is large enough to be read is *critical*. In that context it makes a lot of sense to be able to specify a preferred display size for an image (and, perhaps, an indication of how much the author cares about variation. scott -- scott preece motorola/mcg urbana design center 1101 e. university, urbana, il 61801 phone: 217-384-8589 fax: 217-384-8550 internet mail: preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com
Received on Tuesday, 5 December 1995 09:40:14 UTC