Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: PNG overview slides

Good idea.
I'll investigate that after TPAC + vacation.

On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 10:45 PM Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
wrote:

> Yes, JPEG 1 is definitely focused on photos and so it messes up anything
> with “hard lines” (e.g., logos, icons, etc.).  both JXL and AVIF address
> this concern in their lossy versions.
>
> But definitely worth doing some comparisons of our own.  Taking files from
> places like the Noun Project, FlatIcon and Font Awesome running them
> through the various options and comparing would be a worthwhile way to
> determine if that requirement has already been met.
>
> Leonard
>
> *From: *Chris Blume (ProgramMax) <programmax@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, November 13, 2025 at 8:35 AM
> *To: *Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
> *Cc: *Seeger, Chris (NBCUniversal) <Chris.Seeger@nbcuni.com>, Chris
> Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Portable Network Graphics (PNG) Working Group <
> public-png@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: PNG overview slides
>
> *EXTERNAL: Use caution when clicking on links or opening attachments.*
>
>
> Good points, Leonard. Agreed.
> (And agreed that if 1 format is the goal, JpegXL for example perhaps
> already solves it.)
>
> Thinking of a W3C-centric, lossy use case off the cuff:
> I think people typically associate PNG with logos and icons.
> I don't think logos and icons need to be 100% lossless.
> I think Jpeg 1 does a bad job with (some) logos and icons, so PNG fills
> that gap.
>
> But there are surely better lossy options that are well suited for logos
> and icons (rather than photos).
> I feel like many lossy compression formats target photos.
> And I feel like W3C would care about logos and icons.
> I could see a lossy format that falls under W3C's umbrella and addresses
> an underserved use case.
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 10:30 PM Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
> wrote:
>
> >1 still image format that developers can use for almost everything
> >
> Which was the intent for JPEG XL.
>
> Which brings us back to determining whether it (or some other format, such
> as AVIF or WebP) meets those goals/requirements.
>
> Leonard
>
> *From: *Seeger, Chris (NBCUniversal) <Chris.Seeger@nbcuni.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, November 13, 2025 at 8:24 AM
> *To: *Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, Chris Blume (ProgramMax) <
> programmax@gmail.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
> *Cc: *Portable Network Graphics (PNG) Working Group <public-png@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: PNG overview slides
>
> *EXTERNAL: Use caution when clicking on links or opening attachments.*
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I’m thinking in a similar but slightly different way. Why have different
> image formats when one can answer all of the requirements?
>
> I think it’s good to have choice (JPEG-XL and AVIF), but in my opinion it
> would also be good to have simplicity (1 still image format that developers
> can use for almost everything).
>
> *Chris *
>
>
> *From: *Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, November 13, 2025 at 8:08 AM
> *To: *Seeger, Chris (NBCUniversal) <Chris.Seeger@nbcuni.com>, Chris Blume
> (ProgramMax) <programmax@gmail.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
> *Cc: *Portable Network Graphics (PNG) Working Group <public-png@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: PNG overview slides
>
> Why does it need to be under the W3C umbrella?  We already have JPEG-XL
> and AVIF that meet those criteria and are supported by most/all browsers.
> What would be the benefit/use case for ANOTHER image format?
>
> Leonard
>
> *From: *Seeger, Chris (NBCUniversal) <Chris.Seeger@nbcuni.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, November 13, 2025 at 8:04 AM
> *To: *Chris Blume (ProgramMax) <programmax@gmail.com>, Chris Lilley <
> chris@w3.org>
> *Cc: *Portable Network Graphics (PNG) Working Group <public-png@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: PNG overview slides
>
> *EXTERNAL: Use caution when clicking on links or opening attachments.*
>
>
> Seems like it would be valuable to get a single image standard to support
> lossy and lossless under the W3C umbrella.  I’d like to see this move
> forward.
>
> *Chris Seeger*
>
>
> *From: *Chris Blume (ProgramMax) <programmax@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, November 13, 2025 at 1:05 AM
> *To: *Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
> *Cc: *Portable Network Graphics (PNG) Working Group <public-png@w3.org>
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: PNG overview slides
>
> I have also prepared some slides for the 5th Edition roadmap. (I will
> likely update them further tonight. I want it to feel less "that's asking a
> lot" and more inspirational.)
>
> I didn't realize there was perhaps a slide design I should follow. :) oh
> well
>
> https://www.programmax.net/talks/png-5th-edition-roadmap/
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.programmax.net/talks/png-5th-edition-roadmap/__;!!PIZeeW5wscynRQ!teSn4yviUBeJ8O9oZSwfJ9aKO0E-s15YjPBgNu1aE25KBHvIssFohlbOT0_RndqnlcdI20H5N-JmHbdKxCmf$>
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 2:56 PM Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
>
> Slides for an overview of PNG 3rd Edition (plus what we have so far on
> 4th):
>
> https://www.w3.org/2025/Talks/TPAC/PNG-summary/
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.w3.org/2025/Talks/TPAC/PNG-summary/__;!!PIZeeW5wscynRQ!teSn4yviUBeJ8O9oZSwfJ9aKO0E-s15YjPBgNu1aE25KBHvIssFohlbOT0_RndqnlcdI20H5N-JmHUriXr2b$>
>
> --
> Chris Lilley
> @svgeesus@mastodon.scot
> W3C Distinguished Expert, Color, Graphics & Fonts
> W3C Technical Programming Team, Core Web Design
>
>
>