Subject: ISSUE: Width and height

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 14:34:29 +0100

All,

Working on a feature schema for Internet fax has raised some
questions/concerns about the 'base' set of media features, as represented
by the -media-features- draft.

Width and height
----------------

Using a combination of pixel sizes and resolutions to represent
document/image size is proving to be somewhat clumsy for describing fas
machine capabilities.  I think this will also be true for other rendering
devices.  The reason is that the rendering area of a device tends to have
fixed or known dimensions, and pixel sizes are variable according to the
selected image size and resolution.  With the current feature set, the
renderable area has to be expressed separately for eacjh available
resolution.  Consider the following example from the fax schema work:

> E.g.  the reasonable capability:
> 
>   (& (width<=8.5) (length<=11) (dpi=[100,200,400]) )
> 
> would have to be expressed as:
> 
>   (| (& (pix-x<=850)  (pix-y<=1100) (dpi=100) )
>      (& (pix-x<=1700) (pix-y<=2200) (dpi=200) )
>      (& (pix-x<=3400) (pix-y<=4400) (dpi=400) ) )
> 
> using currently available media features.

I suggest that it would be useful to have Width and Length (or Height)
features registered.  Whether these should be in addition to pix-x and
pix-y, or instead of, I am not clear.

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
([email-masked])