RE: [PHP] Mailing List fun
| From: | tedd | Date: | Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:33:03 +0000 |
| Subject: | RE: [PHP] Mailing List fun | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Groups: | php.general |
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-general+get-281341@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
At 3:54 PM -0400 10/1/08, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 19:48 +0100, Ashley Sheridan wrote:The term "web-safe" when applied to images was a misnomer -- there was no such thing. It originally pertained to certain colors that were consider staples of browsers, such as red, white, blue, cornflowerblue, and so. I think there was 256 of them -- but I may be wrong. In any event, of those considered "web-safe" there were very few of those that were actually the same color when viewed across different browsers. So, truly "web-safe" colors were just a handful. Cheers, tedd -- ------- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.comOn Wed, 2008-10-01 at 14:12 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote:I believe jpg is lossless if you choose 100% quality. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHPUnless it's a JPEG 2000 (which isn't web-safe) then it's lossyI've never heard the term "web-safe" applied to images. What do you mean by that? Lack of browser support? Breaks the web-safe 216 colour palette? Cheers, Rob.