fowlertrainer@anonym.hu wrote:

> 
> HTML files are optimized to one size. 800/600, or 1024/768.

Maybe yours are, but none of mine are.  All my pages will look fine 
anywhere from 300 wide to 2800 wide.

> 
> The pictures are sized to same pixel ratio.

Rastor-based Images as we know them on the web- gif/jpg/png, cannot be 
dynamical sized based on anything without failing to pixelization of the 
image.

Only Vector-based graphics can be scaled.  I for one refuse to place 
Flash/swf on my webpages, and thus, will not have an option to show 
vector graphics to my users.


> But I think, that some Windows MetaFile - like operations are missing 
> from HTML.
> 
> <viewport width=100px height=100px canresize=True>
> <line x1=10 y1=10 x2=50 y2=50>
> <box pos="10,10,20,20" fillcolor="red" fillstyle="thincross_left">
> <text pos="80,80" text="Test" font="arial" size="8">
> </viewport>
> 
> <viewport initwidth=100px initheight=100px canresize=True>
> <line x1=20% y1=20% x2=50% y2=50%>
> </viewport>
> 
> If HTML is extended by this, the pictures (diagrams, etc.) are maked 
> resizable !

Marked, maybe- but it won't work with desirable results.

> 
> Because many-many program, and other documents are stored in HTML 
> format, every need images.
> But images are not resizable without data loss (or add). Only 
> metafile-like things are resizable.

Now you're on to the same thinking I am :)

So, if a windows meta file is added, as you sugegst above, rastor images 
can now be scaled without pixelization?

Even if it does work-  What about Linix, Unix, Mac/Apple, and BSD 
operating systems?  They don't have windows meta files.

> 
> The UML-s, and other pictures are convertable to this language, and in 
> the internet we will better documents like before.
> 
> Thanx for reading:


Good ideas- i just don't see it ever being feasable.


My $.02

-Brian