- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:52:46 +0200
- 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 likely). -- Chris
Received on Thursday, 3 August 2000 04:52:54 UTC