Re: cvs commit: jakarta-james/src/xdocs/images james_config_load_balance.pngjames_config_secondary.png james_config_smart_host.png

[Aaron Knauf]

The trouble with PNG in the past has been poor support from microsoft. IE has a fair proportion of the browser market cornered and provided poor support for PNG up until (I think) one of the point versions of IE4. The trouble, if I remember correctly, was to do with the treatment of transparency.

Other browsers - in particular open source browsers - have had good support for PNG for longer than IE. This is probably due to the fact that PNG is an open alternative to GIF.

As far as I know, all major and most minor browsers now have excellent support for PNG. Most authoring tools and image manipulation tools have support, too - although the out of the box windows tools don't.

All that is left is for graphics libs to catch up. When last I looked (over a year ago) java had no support for PNG in its Java2D libs.

If we are talking about using PNG for the James web site, I'm all for it. PNG can do stuff that GIF can't (such as transparency) and is free - unlike GIF.

Cheers

ADK

Noel J. Bergman wrote:

Bill Parducci contributed images to accompany SMTP delivery documentation

These are PNG images contributed by one of our users. I haven't seen the
accompanying words, yet, but I like the idea that people are helping to
improve up the site. Do we want to allow PNG format, or do we want to
require JPG? How common is PNG support?

--- Noel


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]