All the community hope in the affirmation of the W3C standard PNG in the
web,
but GIF is so common and it hasn't transparency problems like PNG
when it's view in MSIE.
Moreover you're sure that the image is viewable on a large set of browsers,
like old mozilla/3.x compatibles, and on many WAP dev
Sometimes you need GIF and only GIF because of the browser contraints.
with best wishes
Alexander Kachanov
On Sunday, 17 March, 2002, 15:12:57, Matteo wrote:
MDG> Hello all!
MDG> I've found a GIFOutputStream (that can turned into a GIFTranscoder) that
MDG> does *not* implement the LZW compres
On Sunday, 17 March, 2002, 15:12:57, Matteo wrote:
MDG> Hello all!
MDG> I've found a GIFOutputStream (that can turned into a GIFTranscoder) that
MDG> does *not* implement the LZW compression.
Sure, anyone can implement GIF *encoding* as long as they are content
to produce huge, uncompressed ima
Matteo Di Giovinazzo wrote:
>Hello all!
>
>I've found a GIFOutputStream (that can turned into a GIFTranscoder) that
>does *not* implement the LZW compression.
>
>www.shetline.com
>
This sounds very interesting; you should directly get in touch with the
batik-dev's, as Transcoders are their domai
