[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
size-x, -y proposal
As they say: post in haste, repent at leisure.
On reflection, I realize that my previously posted proposal for size-x,
size-y as an alternative to pix-x, pix-y is signifcantly flawed.
The specific problem I have noted is that a data resource described without
resolution cannot be effectively matched with a receiver that is described
Example: consider a synthetic rasterized image which is dimension-free,
but constructed as 640x480 pixels, and a receiver with a printer with an
imagable aea of 10x8 inches and 300dpi resolution. Using the proposal
previously posted, these are described by:
(& (size-x=640) (size-y=480) )
(& (size-x<=8) (size-y<=10) (dpi=300) )
Logically, the image is displayable on the printer, but the above feature
sets cannot be matched according to the feature set matching rules
Hence, I withdraw my previous proposal and shall seek another way of
accommodating the various issues this was intended to address.