W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2000

Re: px vs. pt

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:52:46 +0200
Message-ID: <398932DE.6BBBCCB7@w3.org>
To: Jerrad Pierce <belg4mit@CALLOWAY.MIT.EDU>
CC: Rowland Shaw <Rowland.Shaw@seagatesoftware.com>, www-style@w3c.org

Jerrad Pierce wrote:

> >"I'm sorry I couldn't use terms that EVERYONE would understand, but
> >basically: inches / cm / pt won't really work for images, because they'd get
> >translated to differing dpi, just like the fonts, and then we'd have
> >pixellated-looking scaled images. eeewwwww."

Well, that depends on how the image is resampled. Nothing *requires* the
awful, nearest-neighbor algorithm that HTML browsers seem to use.

> It was plenty to clear to me...
> Isn't this what SVG is for?
>         http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/

The anbswer is yes, on two levels. Firstly if course, vector images rescale
perfectly. But secondly, a raster image included with the svg 'image'
element can be resampled correctly, using bicubic interpolation, and
therefore looks a whole lot better. Or you can use px units for the width
and height if you don't want the resampling (for example, indexed images
with few colors - but then these should be done as vectors anyway most

Received on Thursday, 3 August 2000 04:52:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:54 UTC