Re: Why Mosaic (SMTP Id#: 50843) -Reply

Martian (abigail@mars.ic.iaf.nl)
Wed, 5 Apr 1995 05:30:18 +0200 (MET DST)


Message-Id: <m0rwLnP-0002ImC@mars.ic.iaf.nl>
From: abigail@mars.ic.iaf.nl (Martian)
Subject: Re: Why Mosaic (SMTP Id#: 50843) -Reply
To: www-html@www10.w3.org
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 05:30:18 +0200 (MET DST)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950404084906.11481B@engr16.engr.uark.edu> from "Matt Foster" at Apr 4, 95 05:02:45 pm

> 
> > Something for the new Gif standard perhaps??
> 
>   I don't think that it is the current GIF standard.  It is the way that 
> the graphical browsers handle these GIFs.  A new GIF standard is the 
> farthest thing from what the WWW community needs.  I say convert all of 
> the GIFs that you have to JPEGs anyway.  With CompuServe going haywire 
> over trying to charge a fee for use of their standard, who needs it.

Actually, there are many times one prefers GIFs over JPGs:

- A lot of inlines are *smaller* as GIF than as JPG. Almost all icons are.
  In fact, many thumbnails can be reduced to GIFs smaller than 1k. You 
  hardly can make a JPG (any JPG) that small. In fact, when the corresponding
  JPG is smaller than the GIF, you should wonder whether the image might
  be too big to inline it.
- For images with sharp edges (like in logo's and other computer generated
  stuff) JPGs look bad, creating `ghostedges'. (Read the JPG faq.)
- Not all browser can handle inline JPGs.
- You cannot have a transparant JPGs.
- You cannot have interlaced JPGs.



Abigail