Sorry for the continuing off-topic stuff, but some things were said that have
to be dealt with:
<< Version Visitors %
1. MSIE 5.x 1,705 53.26
2. Netscape 4.x 1,173 36.63
3. MSIE 4.x 224 7.00
4. MSIE 5.x (AOL) 54 1.69>>
This shows 4.95% of vistors are using browsers that cannot display PNG
images, disregarding Netscape 5 (which can) and Opera (which I think can as
well). Breaking the pages for the 12 Netscape 3 users is not a bad thing.
Thought: If a website uses images, does it necessarily have to care that
text-based browsers won't see them? No. Times have changed and text-based
browsers need no sympathy. You write that IMG tag without a second thought
for the poor text-based browsers. Same way here. If a website uses PNG
images or Macromedia Flash or Javascript, does it have to care that old
clunky browsers won't see this useful content? No. Times have changed and
obsolescent software doesn't need our sympathy. So write that IMG
SRC="abc.png" tag with impunity.
<<Netscape 4.08 supports PNG but ignores the alpha channel. kfm understands
the
alpha channel>>
Irrelevant, which is amazing considering that this is already offtopic. :-D
The GIMPS banners contain no transparency of any type.
<<I don't even know what PNG is. I sure as heck won't switch browsers to
view the trend-of-the-week. >>
PNG is *not* a trend-of-the-week thing. It's been a rock-solid frozen
standard since 1995, yes, 1995. That's when Windows 95 was released. Wow.
PNG is the unrivaled champion of lossless image formats, hands down, and on
that technical reason alone it's a good idea to switch. (Saves bandwidth,
more abilities, etc.) This is totally disregarding that other lossless image
format.
<<I expect page to have images which are jpg or gif.>>
<ZEALOT> I'm now disgusted with GIF images, if only because I'm tired of
living in an 8-bit color, 1-bit transparency world. I wouldn't stand for a
computer that ran with 256 colors, and I don't have to stand for an image
format that tops out at 256-colors and 1-bit transparency either. And has
terrifically bad compression either.</ZEALOT>
<<Simply being better doesn't mean it will become either the standard or the
most popular.>>
Doesn't matter. PNG *is* better, and PNG ought to be used on the GIMPS site
regardless of whether any other site does. The fact that 95% of browsers
support this format (at least the features that banners and the like use)
means that there is no reason not to switch, and every reason to make the
switch. This sounds like holy war talk, I know, but it's actually a sane and
thoughtful judgement of the situation. :-P
<<'portable network graphics', a new opensource based>>
It's actually not new. :-P
<<We now return you to your regularly scheduled newsgroup.>>
This is a NEWSGROUP?!? Since when?
Back to our irregularly scheduled *mailing list*....
Stephan "I read the PNG specification, and saw at once that it was
_beautiful_" Lavavej
_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt
