On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:39 PM, John Tamplin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Joel Webber <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> If we want to support IE6 fully (which I hate having to do, but it's hard
>> to argue with the fact that it still account for ~20% of the market,
>> depending upon whose stats you use), then I think this is basically the only
>> approach that will work. We all agree that the DirectX filter is far too
>> memory hungry, especially on the old machines that are often still running
>> IE6. Bundling images with disparate palettes into a single 8-bit image is
>> far too unpredictable, which seems pretty unacceptable to me. So I will
>> argue that we should, on IE6:
>> - Leave GIFs alone.
>>
>
> Even those without transparency?
>

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant just those without transparency (see below).

- Turn PNGs with transparency into GIFs.
>>   - Open question: How should we clamp the [0, 255] alpha channel to [0,
>> 1]?
>>
>
> If we have to do that anyway, why not just make them 1-bit alpha PNGs?
>

I actually don't care. I just thought someone said that it was hard to get
Java2D to spit out a 1-bit alpha PNG.

- Bundle only those images without transparency into PNGs.
>> - Stop using the DirectX filter altogether.
>>
>> Does anyone have any really strong objection to this approach? It will add
>> some extra requests on IE6 under some circumstances, but that's got to be
>> better than either (a) completely mangling bundled images, or (b) blowing
>> massive amounts of memory.
>>
>
> If we leave all GIFs alone, I suspect that will remove image bundle
> benefits on IE6 in most instances.  I am not sure why we need to leave them
> alone if they don't have transparency -- why not treat them as we do today?


By "Bundle only those images without transparency into PNGs.", I actually
meant to address this. If they don't have transparency, bundle them as we
always have.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to