On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 16:52 -0400, Jason Pruim wrote:
> On Oct 1, 2008, at 4:36 PM, Daniel Brown wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:33 PM, tedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> The term "web-safe" when applied to images was a misnomer -- there
> >> was no
> >> such thing.
> >>
> >> It ori
On Oct 1, 2008, at 4:36 PM, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:33 PM, tedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
At 4:36 PM -0400 10/1/08, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:33 PM, tedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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,
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:33 PM, tedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 thi
At 3:54 PM -0400 10/1/08, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 19:48 +0100, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
On 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 an
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 21:11 +0100, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
>
> There are two types of JPEG, the normal ones, and the new 2000 format.
> JPEG 2000 I believe supports CMYK and lossless compression, but the
> images do not display on any browser I know of. This has caused a lot of
> problems with CMS's
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 15:54 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 19:48 +0100, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> > On 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.
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 14:53 -0400, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Ashley Sheridan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Unless it's a JPEG 2000 (which isn't web-safe) then it's lossy, even at
> > 100% quality. The nature of the algorithm is such that there is always
> > loss invol
Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 19:48 +0100, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
On 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 PHP
Unless it's a
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 14:53 -0400, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Ashley Sheridan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Unless it's a JPEG 2000 (which isn't web-safe) then it's lossy, even at
> > 100% quality. The nature of the algorithm is such that there is always
> > loss invol
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 19:48 +0100, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> On 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 PHP
> Unless i
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 1:54 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Robert Cummings; Boyd, Todd M.; php-general@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP] Mailing List fun
>
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Ashley Sheridan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unless it's a JPEG 2000 (which isn't web-safe) then it's lossy, even at
> 100% quality. The nature of the algorithm is such that there is always
> loss involved, which is why it's best to work on photos that are not in
> J
On 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 PHP
Unless it's a JPEG 2000 (which isn't web-safe) then it's lossy, even at
100% quality
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 12:00 -0500, Boyd, Todd M. wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Robert Cummings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 11:57 AM
> > To: Boyd, Todd M.
> > Cc: php-general@lists.php.net
> > Subject: RE: [P
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Se la vi.
>
> I'm sure you mean "C'est la vie!" here, unless that isn't French :)
He was referring to the editor, Vi. In a language known as
Peachpese, it is directly-translated as "see the editor." And, in the
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Cummings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 11:57 AM
> To: Boyd, Todd M.
> Cc: php-general@lists.php.net
> Subject: RE: [PHP] Mailing List fun
>
> On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 11:50 -0500, Boyd, Todd M. wr
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 11:50 -0500, Boyd, Todd M. wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ---8<--- snip!
>
> Yeah... if you put OT anywhere in the topic, it rejects it automagically. I
> wondered why people were using zero-T (0T) instead; now I know. :)
> -Original Message-
> From: Wolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---8<--- snip!
Yeah... if you put OT anywhere in the topic, it rejects it automagically. I
wondered why people were using zero-T (0T) instead; now I know. :) Seems kind
of strange that going through the effort of flagging your
Subject:OT: Mail service Restored
Who'd have thunk that a person who messes up a Time Warner account and WORKS in
Time Warner can disable your email accounts.
Not only that, but when they finally figure out what happened (3 phone calls,
over an hour on the phone with them), they are
20 matches
Mail list logo
