- From: Chris Lilley <Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr>
- Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 19:05:40 +0100 (MET)
- To: "David Perrell" <davidp@earthlink.net>, "Chris Lilley" <Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr>, "www-style" <www-style@w3.org>
On Nov 30, 4:11pm, David Perrell wrote: > Now, if only display board mfgrs would move to 'deprecate' indexed > color and promote 24-bit as a standard. You can't have good web color > if you're limited to a 216-color fixed palette or dithered color. At > the very least the UA makers need to do adaptive or settable palettes. What he said. Twice. > Of course this presents problems with backward compatibility, since > optimized images could look terrible on browsers limited to the NS-216 > color set. Not so terrible, depends on the dithering method used. And not all browsers use the NS-216 colors, including some NS ones ;-) and images which are hacked into NS-216 rather than an adaptive palette look so poor on a truecolor or hicolor display. > But perhaps with a special OBJECT type an author could > specify optimized images for those browsers that understand the type > but fall back to standard NS-216 images for those that don't. Sounds messy. There are proposals which use HTTP headers to indicate aspects of the display, including color depth; the server can send the appropriate image. Thankfully, NS-216 palette is still not a standard. -- Chris Lilley, W3C [ http://www.w3.org/ ] Graphics and Fonts Guy The World Wide Web Consortium http://www.w3.org/people/chris/ INRIA, Projet W3C chris@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 +33 (0)4 93 65 79 87 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Monday, 2 December 1996 13:05:39 UTC