Re: Netscape and PNG

Chris Lilley (
Tue, 29 Oct 1996 19:24:20 +0100

From: Chris Lilley <>
Subject: Re: Netscape and PNG
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 19:24:20 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: Peter Flynn <>

Peter Flynn wrote:
>       Another thing I didn't notice in the ad for Netscape 4.0 was support
>    for in-line PNG graphics files!
>       I know that someone from Netscape reads this mailing list--so I ask
>    you: what does Netscape have against the new PNG file format? Why are you
>    so reluctant to support native in-line PNG files the same way you support
>    GIF and JPG?
> Best reason I know: there's no money in it in the short term.

Wheras there is money in spacer?

Actually, supporting PNG does allow a graphic to resemble what the 
original author wanted, regardless of platform; none of that "Why are 
my images all murky on a PC" nonsense. There is even enough information 
in the file for the colors to be correctly presented by a color
system. And this does in turn allow online sales of color-critical items 
such as clothing, cosmetics, furnishings, foodstuffs without taking a 
massive financial hit on returned items. And it allows better brand 
recognition; you want Kodak (tm) yellow, you got it.

So yes, there is money in it, actually.

And of course proper anti-aliased text without the white haloes which 
can be repurposed on top of any background image without having to make 
n versions each antialiased for a fifferent background would enable 
faster loading, more professional looking web pages and have undoubted
cool factor.

As to why they won't support it, well I can't speak for Netscape. There
is a royalty free cross-platform ANSI C implementation they could just
link in. 
I don't know. Perhaps someone from Netscape would care to comment?

Chris Lilley, W3C                          [ ]
Graphics and Fonts Guy            The World Wide Web Consortium              INRIA,  Projet W3C                       2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
+33 (0)4 93 65 79 87       06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France