> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 14:15:00 -0400 > From: "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: More words around Arachne bugs
[ s k i p ] > Suggestion: If you are not a member of the development team, any > public "bug list" should clearly indicate that the bugs are > specific to your system, your installation ... and you should > provide full information on that system and components so that > people who *DO* know how things work could have a chance of > identifying the true source of the reported "bugs." I did. I mentioned HiColor and CP*.APM. > P.S. I seem to remember getting yelled at for having a 5 or 6 line > sig file on my messages; isn't 9 lines or so more than excessive? I've double-checked it; it's not more than 256 chars long, anyway. > Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:40:36 +0100 > From: "Joerg Dietze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Noisy GIFs confirmed (was: more words...) > I can confirm the noisy GIFs at Mithgols homepage. The GIFs look fine with PV so it >seems an Arachne problem. I'm using a S3 video card with Trio V64+ chipset with 2 MB >at 1024x786 high color. Aha! But what is PV? > Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:31:54 -0400 > From: "Clarence Verge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: More words around Arachne bugs > Oooohh. Nice to be openly corresponding with another touchy and > opinionated personality. Welcome to our special little world.;-) > I hope the above response is taken by Mithgol the Webmaster as > an attempt at humor. If you don't like bad humor in your email > maybe you should have your medication reviewed. <g> I should. <g> > A .ZBM is a zipped bitmap. Set in /etc/mime.types: > image/x-zbitmap zbm Thank you. But does it really save the disk space? I mean, save it better than JPEG? > > As I've already mentioned on the same webpage example, the unclean URL bar is just >a side-effect of CP1251.APM fonts that are a bit larger than Arachne fonts of size 1 >(since v1.65). I've never heard of any Russian user of Arachne preferring the fourth >(minimalized) > > How about the fifth ? fullscreen ? > Fullscreen is cool... I've already seen some guys in Moscow two or three years ago who occasionally used fullscreen Arachne. > Opinions vary, but I.E. has more serious bugs than Arachne. > Just curious. Do you send bug reports to Redmond? [rolling on the floor laughing] No, I just don't use it. But now I'm in an internet club on their computer, and there's their webmaster sitting next PC to me, and he's writing some Flash intro to their website. Of course he'll test it in MSIE, he loves MSIE. > > O.K. I'll do it for you - go watch > > http://mithgol.complife.net/ara-bug.htm > > Got a 404. Is that a bug ? > Damn. That's a bug. I failed to upload it yesterday. Well... now it should work. Hit "Reload" ;-) > You may have a valid bug there, although I have never noticed the > effect myself. I, and probably others, will look for it. Okay. The thing is: it's all OK in MSIE and NC, it's bad in Arachne. That GIFs should be clean. > The discussion is useful for separating common and reproduceable bugs from the >"special effects". If I haven't ticked you off too much this time, maybe we could put >some effort into examining in detail ONE of the "bugs" you reported. Pick one and >demo it. Please make sure the demo works on some computer other than your main one. >;-) At least GIFs work on Joerg Dietze's. Any more reports? > Yes, in the final analysis Michael will be the one to deal with problems he feels >are well defined and important enough to deal with. But don't be surprised if he >feels some new feature is more important to work on than a bug which doesn't happen >to bother him right now. Ok. > > And since he doesn't use DOS anymore.... > Wow! {8-[ ] Does he at least *have* one to test the thing? > Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:21:46 -0400 > From: "Clarence Verge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Noisy GIFs confirmed (was: more words...) > Yes, I also see noisy GIFs on that page. But I'm not so sure what the problem is. The problem is, they should not be noisy, since they are not when painted. And they're noisy in Arachne. And they may be red, when background is red. They are transparent - but it is not actual transparency, it's some transparency added by Arachne when she rendered them. > First, personal comment: Noisy transparant GIFs aren't a big deal to me because the >use of transparant GIFs is dumb. You have NO control over the users choice of >background - unless you think everyone uses an I.E. default. :( Okay, but when the background is already defined by BODY BACKGROUND, the defaults are gone (unless you think some people set - in MSIE - that their defaults override page settings). And now it helps to make GIF smaller when you get rid of some GIF noise making it transparent; transparency is much better compressed by LZW, and it makes no visible change when you leave foreground noise from noisy background. > Second, I isolated and checked the octagon with sunglasses (source.gif) in GWS. > Yes, the sunglasses were nicely transparant, but there was still a > lot of noise around the edges. The info screen said the GIF had a > background color of 255 which seems to be a bit odd - or I.E. like. > > Wouldn't a black background color make more sense ? What? The sunglasses must NOT be transparent, they should be solid black opaque, and that was the reason for me not to choose black color for transparency. > I know nothing about transparent GIFs and their use of any builtin > background colors tho. These are just my comments. :) I'm not an expert in GIFs also. Deeply yours, Mithgol the Webmaster. (yes, I'll get rid of that long signature...)
