On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 02:28 +0300, Andrey Chernov wrote: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 01:22:34PM -0500, Coleman Kane wrote: > > One thing that I noticed was the APNG patch from here: > > * http://littlesvr.ca/apng/. > > This seems to be expected by Thunderbird and is part of the latest > > source tree. Mozilla has been maintaining a format spec here: > > * https://wiki.mozilla.org/APNG_Specification > > It should be either accepted by libpng developers (and this way appears in > the png port automatically) or separate slave apng port should be made. > Porter is poor replacement for developer, especially considering lots of > security holes libpng long history. >
That is a good point, though the author of libpng suggests the MNG format for animated graphics (and JNG as a jpeg version). This leads me to believe that he's probably uninterested in actually incorporating the APNG patch into libpng. Honestly, I don't understand why the mozilla people have decided to push this APNG standard now. Maybe I'll just go and post into that mozilla issue a complain about wasting development time on an unfinished spec that seems like a reimplementation of MNG. I'll write to Greg (author) and see what he says. This is one of those annoying points in software evolution where big entity A begins spreading around a patched version of Author B's software, which may end up rivaling Author B's implementation of the patch's functionality. -- Coleman Kane
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
