Re: Image types and related issues [was: Re: filetype extensions]

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Apr 94-present
• Next message: James (Eric) Tilton: "relative URLs, a canonical interpretation?"
• Previous message: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: Image types and related issues [was: Re: filetype extensions] "
• Maybe in reply to: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: Image types and related issues [was: Re: filetype extensions] "

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 23:18:06 +0200
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Message-id: <Pine.3.89.9405101617.C15461-0100000@brazos.is.rice.edu>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: troth@rice.edu
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: Rick Troth <troth@rice.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Image types and related issues [was: Re: filetype extensions] 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Mime-Version: 1.0
Mime-Version: 1.0

> Hmm.. the server perhaps shoul multipy .9 by some estimated data los
> in the ->JPEG conversion, and .8 times the ->GIF conversion factor,
> and compare the products. Anyway... the .8 and .9 shouldn't be used
> outside this context.
 
	Right!   Both an "internal" (server) weight and an "external" 
(client) weight.   Factor both for each representation;  pick the best; 
send it back to the client. 
 
> Dan
 
-- 
"There's just some things that numbers can't measure" - Bob Bennett 
Rick Troth <troth@rice.edu>, Rice University, Information Systems