-Original Message-
From: Wolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---8--- snip!
Yeah... if you put OT anywhere in the topic, it rejects it automagically. I
wondered why people were using zero-T (0T) instead; now I know. :) Seems kind
of strange that going through the effort of flagging your
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 11:50 -0500, Boyd, Todd M. wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Wolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---8--- snip!
Yeah... if you put OT anywhere in the topic, it rejects it automagically. I
wondered why people were using zero-T (0T) instead; now I know. :) Seems
-Original Message-
From: Robert Cummings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 11:57 AM
To: Boyd, Todd M.
Cc: php-general@lists.php.net
Subject: RE: [PHP] Mailing List fun
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 11:50 -0500, Boyd, Todd M. wrote:
-Original Message
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Se la vi.
I'm sure you mean C'est la vie! here, unless that isn't French :)
He was referring to the editor, Vi. In a language known as
Peachpese, it is directly-translated as see the editor. And, in the
context of
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 12:00 -0500, Boyd, Todd M. wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Robert Cummings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 11:57 AM
To: Boyd, Todd M.
Cc: php-general@lists.php.net
Subject: RE: [PHP] Mailing List fun
On Wed, 2008-10-01
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 14:12 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote:
I believe jpg is lossless if you choose 100% quality.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
Unless it's a JPEG 2000 (which isn't web-safe) then it's lossy, even at
100% quality. The
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Ashley Sheridan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless it's a JPEG 2000 (which isn't web-safe) then it's lossy, even at
100% quality. The nature of the algorithm is such that there is always
loss involved, which is why it's best to work on photos that are not in
JPEG
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 1:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Robert Cummings; Boyd, Todd M.; php-general@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP] Mailing List fun
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Ashley Sheridan
[EMAIL
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 19:48 +0100, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 14:12 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote:
I believe jpg is lossless if you choose 100% quality.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
Unless it's a JPEG 2000
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 14:53 -0400, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Ashley Sheridan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless it's a JPEG 2000 (which isn't web-safe) then it's lossy, even at
100% quality. The nature of the algorithm is such that there is always
loss involved,
Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 19:48 +0100, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 14:12 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote:
I believe jpg is lossless if you choose 100% quality.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
Unless it's
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 14:53 -0400, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Ashley Sheridan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless it's a JPEG 2000 (which isn't web-safe) then it's lossy, even at
100% quality. The nature of the algorithm is such that there is always
loss involved,
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 15:54 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 19:48 +0100, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 14:12 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote:
I believe jpg is lossless if you choose 100% quality.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 21:11 +0100, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
There are two types of JPEG, the normal ones, and the new 2000 format.
JPEG 2000 I believe supports CMYK and lossless compression, but the
images do not display on any browser I know of. This has caused a lot of
problems with CMS's
At 3:54 PM -0400 10/1/08, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 19:48 +0100, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 14:12 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote:
I believe jpg is lossless if you choose 100% quality.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:33 PM, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The term web-safe when applied to images was a misnomer -- there was no
such thing.
It originally pertained to certain colors that were consider staples of
browsers, such as red, white, blue, cornflowerblue, and so. I think there
At 4:36 PM -0400 10/1/08, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:33 PM, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The term web-safe when applied to images was a misnomer -- there was no
such thing.
It originally pertained to certain colors that were consider staples of
browsers, such as red,
On Oct 1, 2008, at 4:36 PM, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:33 PM, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The term web-safe when applied to images was a misnomer -- there
was no
such thing.
It originally pertained to certain colors that were consider
staples of
browsers, such as
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 16:52 -0400, Jason Pruim wrote:
On Oct 1, 2008, at 4:36 PM, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:33 PM, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The term web-safe when applied to images was a misnomer -- there
was no
such thing.
It originally pertained to
19 matches
Mail list logo
