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
19 matches
Mail list logo
