- From: Steve Mulder <smulder@tsdesign.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 13:17:45 -0500
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, "Eric A. Meyer" <emeyer@sr71.lit.cwru.edu>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
At 4:48 PM +0100 2/8/99, Chris Lilley wrote: >"Eric A. Meyer" wrote: >> >> Chris LIlley wrote: >> >> >Well stop messing around with GIF and with bulk-enhancing dithering >> >screens and start using PNG, which does not mandate large type and comes >> >in 0/255, 1/255, 2/255 .... 255/255 varieties. >> >> Show me that browsers natively, efficiently support PNG and content >> negotiation, and I for one would switch in a second. I'm sick of being >> stuck with 1-bit transparency channels. >> >> </EMeyer> >> > >Testing with the browsers I have handy access to (at home, so I don't >have that many) > >Mozilla/4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) > image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, image/png, */* > >Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0b1; Windows NT) > image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, >application/vnd.ms-excel, application/msword, */* > >amaya/V1.3a libwww/5.1n > */* > >Mozilla/3.0 (compatible; Opera/3.0; Windows NT 4.0) 3.50b9 > image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, */* The 4.x browsers might technically support PNG inline, but they don't yet support 8-bit transparency, which is the key to making the switch to PNG worthwhile. (I could also add gamma correction as an essential feature.) When the browser makers do get their act together, PNG will be an awe-inspiring sight indeed... steve
Received on Monday, 8 February 1999 13:15:42 UTC