Re: backgrounds

Sean Howard (showard@netgate.net)
Fri, 30 Aug 1996 17:24:49 -0500


Message-Id: <v01540b06ae4d1aa4fc0f@[205.214.160.118]>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 17:24:49 -0500
To: www-html@w3.org
From: showard@netgate.net (Sean Howard)
Subject: Re: backgrounds

>> Wouldn't it be nice if you could specify a background as an
>> animated GIF - and have it work?
>>
>
>Wouldn't it be nice if people would concentrate on content, rather than on
>thinking up new "features" for whiz-bang presentation?
>
>Wouldn't it be nice if people would use the WWW as a medium for
>information exchange, rather than as a high-tech replacement for
>television?
>
>Bill

Wouldn't it be nice if everything on a newsgroup or mailing list wasn't
turned into a war?  <vbg>

I have to agree with Bill and Jay.  But technically there's no real reason
you couldn't have a background animated gif. (watch this one get flamed out
of context!  Most people won't keep reading. <s>)

There is certainly no need for special tags or changes to the HTML specs
should this idea be implemented. The beauty of animated GIFs is that
they're an OLD standard and can be implemented or not implemented in a
browser. The animated gif info (inside the gif file) is just skipped over
by browsers not implementing it. So basically, it's a decision of the
browser developers (but hey, so are the specs these days, eh Wilbur? <s>)

Now. Why I agree with Bill and Jay is that the current video and browser
technology just about dies with two or three animated gifs of any size on a
page. Imagine the results of a background animated gif.

But with time, perhaps this will begin to become more acceptable as video
cards and browsers get more adept at handling moving graphics on our
screens...

Sean <DREAMING>of being so bored I actually posted to the HTML newslist and
ruined my almost perfect record of lurkdom <s> </DREAMING>