- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 00:20:32 +0200
- To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Also sprach David Woolley:
> > is JPEG. Only the "lossy" half of the JPEG standard is used, not the
> > "arithmetic coding" part. The unused part of JPEG is encumbered with
>
> This is confusing. As I understand it, arithmetic encoding is an
> alternative to Huffman coding, which is also lossless. The wording
> above seems to suggest that the whole encoding is lossless when using
> arithmetic encoding. I believe there is a lossless JPEG standard, but
> the use of arithmetic encoding is either completely orthogonal or
> coincidental.
No, it's not. Arithmetic coding is part of the original JPEG standard.
> (On further research, it peforms worse than PNG and is
> effectively dead.)
Indeed. Which is why it would have been a bad idea to require browsers
to support it.
-h&kon
Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Monday, 1 May 2006 22:20:57 UTC