"Christopher S. Swingley" wrote:
> > Previous experience with transparent pngs indicates to me that Netscape
> > is brain dead when it comes to them.  I spent a ton of time trying to
> > figure out what was wrong.  I gave up and posted the image as is.  A
> > friend of mine viewed it with M$ IE and happened to mention to me that
> > he really liked the transparency.
> >
> > This appears to be a problem with Netscape on any platform. :(
> Your friend must have been using the latest version of M$ IE (5.0)
> because version 4 didn't support transparency.  Netscape version 5
> also supports transparency, and is available as an alpha-test
> version from www.mozilla.org (Milestone 13 is the latest alpha).

Wrong.  I then tested the image with IE 4.0 and the transparency
worked.  I have IE on a windows machine for testing purposes only.

Unfortunately Mozilla is not a viable solution for the real world.  It
is buggy as hell and fails to load all kinds of stuff, particularily
https, which in this day and age is a necessity.

> But even if version 5 of the popular browsers do support transparent
> PNG images, it might not be a wise idea to assume that everyone
> viewing your pages is using the latest version.


> Chris
> --
> Christopher S. Swingley           tel: 907-474-2689 fax: 474-2643
> 930 Koyukuk Drive, Suite 408C     email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> University of Alaska Fairbanks    www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu:8080/
> Fairbanks, AK  99775                     ~cswingle
> PGP key: http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu:8080/~cswingle/pubkey.asc

Until later: Geoffrey           [EMAIL PROTECTED]

I'm afraid there will be more problems with W2K then there were with

Reply via email to