The terminology is also quite deceiving.
When you start questioning terminology that is widely used and generally accepted without a bit of controversy, it's time to wonder whether the misunderstanding is on your part or that of the majority who remain unconfused.
Of course if you feed digital data like an executable into both formats, JPG will corrupt it and PNG won't. But that's not what we are doing.
Uh... that's exactly what we are doing.
We are feeding a digital representation of analog data into the formats.
What the digital data represents is entirely irrelevant. In fact, erroneously taking it into account has badly biased your argument. The fact is, you don't know where the data is coming from or whether it is in fact a representation of analog data. For example, what if it is entirely created in The Gimp?
You have to consider the system as a whole.
No. You don't. Just as you can talk about the properties of a car's tires without mentioning the engine, you can talk about the properties of compression algorithms without discussing the camera that uses them.
-sauoq "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
In reply to Re: Re: Re: •Re: Re: •Re: Re: •Re: GIF patent
by sauoq
in thread GIF patent
by didier
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |