No subject

IE6  is notorious for not rendering PNGs properly  (especially those with
transparency or transparent areas) but IE7 seems to be addressing this issue
(I haven't checked a transparent/partially transparent PNG in IE7, though).
There is a CSS +JQuery workaround for IE6 to force a pseudo transparency for
IE6.  On the plus side, PNGs have a tendency to be stable, smaller sized
than a JPG with no loss in resolution (due to compression). Both PNGs and
JPGs can be progressive display (depending upon which software creates/edits
them).

JPGs can be huge and/or lossy, but are supported fairly evenly across the
web and across browsers but JPGs are excellent for photographs due to the
depth of color field. They are really the standard for  photos, montages,
and more detail oriented imagery on the web. JPGs and TIFFs both offer
support for embedded EXIF metadata; I'm not sure if that is available for
PNGs.  I am not sure if that is of importance to this project. Generally,
EXIF data is written by the camera to the image file, but it can be added
and manipulated afterwards by some image editing programs or via scripts.

GIFs are excellent for graphical elements like logos and line art;
especially those with limited color palettes, providing both transparency
and very clean/sharp lines. TIFFs can be huge -- excellent quality for
archival images, but probably well beyond the scale of most web browsers.

..and that doesn't begin to touch on formats for mobile & portable devices
beyond what they support for web browsing.

Just my thoughts. No easy answer on the image format. ;-)

robin fay


On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Karen Schneider <kgs at esilibrary.com> wrote:

> We met today and it was a gloriously short meeting -- we made great
> headway in 20 minutes.
>
> We compared the two guides I had shared (from two companies using
> DocBook) and agreed that one of the guides held great promise as a
> model. Since my August is a little less crazy than some other folks',
> I volunteered to start working with the XML the company had
> thoughtfully provided to begin customizing it for Evergreen's needs.
> I've got the files open in oXygen... not sure I'll have a working
> styleguide by tomorrow afternoon, but wouldn't rule out some work on
> it!
>
> Here are some of the areas that we felt needed to differ from the
> styleguide (aside from changing corporate references to refer to
> Evergreen, and licensing to Creative Commons  ;) )
>
> Lynn Floyd -- liked the layout of metroguide but Progress software had
> better material for our needs (this was a consensus)
>
> Lynn -- heed the elements unused, citation, isbn, issn -- these could
> be useful for us (depends on how they are defined)
>
> Lynn -- Reorder things: figures, screen shots, inline, graphics -- put
> before tables and lists -- consensus
>
> Question: format? for graphics? implications?
>
> Jennifer -- thinks jpeg is more widely used
>
> Lynn -- PNG -- more cross-platform-friendly
>
> Karen: What are the sizing options? Note: need to write
> graphics-independent content -- for reuse in translations
>
> All: we agreed to make the exclusion list much shorter (the list of
> excluded tags)
>
> --
> --
> | Karen G. Schneider
> | Community Librarian
> | Equinox Software Inc. "The Evergreen Experts"
> | Toll-free: 1.877.Open.ILS (1.877.673.6457) x712
> | kgs at esilibrary.com
> | Web: http://www.esilibrary.com
> _______________________________________________
> OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list
> OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION at list.georgialibraries.org
> http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation
>



-- 
http://contentdivergent.blogspot.com

--00221532cda47b418804706bdb04
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable