Toby said:
Did you not *read* my post? I fully understand the difference between
vector and raster, which is why I said that SVG graphics scale well.
Besides which, even raster graphics don't scale too badly. Observe this
example:
http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/scratch/1em
This uses a small raster graphic (4.3KB, PNG) and sizes it to
"height:1em;width:1em" at a variety of different font sizes. Screen
captures are provided for a variety of different browsers (IE, Moz, O7,
Safari, Konq) and the graphic scales quite will in any of them.
my goodness... I hope no one else can see this post. do you know what
you did?
you took an image (256px x 256px) an just downscaled it by setting the
image width and height property. if I would design web sites like this,
I would be out of the business in days (maybe in minutes). I don't know
if there is enough space here to explain you how images are to be
presented on a website. hmm..let's try. first of all, we still have a
lot of low bandwith users with 56k modems around. your image is in its
original size 4.28kB (that's fair enough, as you use PNG which
compresses images lossless, and you were lucky enough to use a very
linear image).
Now you use your image in various different sizes (never in the original
size, you always use it smaller than the original one is [just a hint:
try it the reverse way, and you will instantly see the difference
betwenn vector and raster ;-)]). if I take your first size example:
an image 16pixel x 16pixel. that would make 635 Bytes! but you let the
user download again those 4.28kB...
On the other hand: your images DOESN'T resize nicely. If you look at it
closely you will see, that the lines are starting to aliase, and they
look fuzzy...
As I say, I don't have them mixed up, and I will continue to recommend
sizing pictures in ems in preference to sizing fonts in pixels.
Just don't do it. You are going to make your life very very tough.
Images do have a fixed size (it's raster), never confuse this with
vector. Please!
bernhard
