Jim Ley wrote:
"Peter Becker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in messageGood reference, thanks for this -- it explains quite a lot. But my conclusion from this article and this page linked from it:
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
But let's not play the blame game -- I don't care whose fault it is, I
just want the results to be good. At the moment I am not happy with the
looks of my website in IE -- which I rarely see myself but unfortunately
IE is still the most common browser, so I have to accomodate for that.
It seems to be somehow the combination of Batik's rendering of the SVG
into PNG with IE's rendering of the PNG onto the screen that causes the
problem -- most programs I tried display the PNG as I want it.
You might want to read Henri Sivonen's review:
http://www.hut.fi/u/hsivonen/png-gamma.html
http://www.hut.fi/u/hsivonen/png-gamma-test-results.html
is that I want to encode PNGs without gamma information. That would break some Opera versions and some (all?) Safari versions, but (a) these are way less important for me than IE and (b) it seems to be that it is their implementation which is on the wrong side of things. Also it seems that unless Batik does some big magic it can't really know for sure which gamma value to use -- so attaching it to the PNGs is also on the wrong side of things. Did I get that right?
Is there some option to get Batik not to encode gamma in PNGs? I remember having hacked these bits of the code a while ago, but I think I just tweaked the numbers. How do I get unlabeled PNGs from Batik?
Peter
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
