- From: Mary Cosaboom <cherry@neta.com>
- Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 11:02:58 -0700
- To: "Harold A. Driscoll" <harold@driscoll.chi.il.us>
- CC: www-amaya@w3.org
"Harold A. Driscoll" wrote: > > At 08:14 16-10-98 -0700, Jim FitzSimons wrote: > >Ramzi GUETARI wrote: > >> >It is a problem with windows 95/98. > > Aptly put... what is being observed is the Windows file name extension > associations, the quirks thereof, and the attempts by various applications > to work within (or possibly in spite of) the system ~design~. I hate windows but I have live with it. If you are going to exist in a meanfull way in the world you need to support windows applications. > > >I just checked Windows 98 and it requires .PNG > >on the end to view the PNG images. Windows 95 > >is the same. The Browsers can view the images > >without the .PNG on the end but not any other > >application even paintshop pro. > > It can be done, but as you observe can be a challenge to do so. You are > overstating it a tad,as there are some applications which have the smarts > to do so. A smart application works and adapts. Very specialized things no matter how "superior" will die. > > >I think it would be more standard to always > >include the .PNG on the end. > > Please, if you wish to reference standards, include citations and do so > accurately. I'm not sure of what you refer, but the PNG specification (W3C > REC-png 1.0) at "8.1 File name extension" makes a ~recommendation~ (not a > requirement) and indicates that _lower case_ ".png" is preferred. > > The issue here hardly seems to be one of standards, as Amaya seems to be > behaving properly. Rather one of interoperability, to make the > documentation more accessible, even on lesser-abled systems such as > Windows. <g> > > As such, a desirable petty (but useful to some) improvement would be to > change the names of PNG files to include a ".png" (lower case) file name > extension. (If I understand correctly, such a change will likely be done > in a future release.) > > /Harold > I will welcome the interoperability improvement. > ps. As far as Windows being a PITA in a number of ways, I think it fair to > say that most of us who've made extensive use of a variety of computer > systems over the years have also found other than Windows to be a PITA at > times. Ergo, our goal here is to identify and deal with platform PITA > issues, while trying to sidestep *.advocacy issues. <b> > This last statement fails interoperability. What is PITA? I have been using and programming different computer systems since 1963 and I am not ashamed to be stuck using windows now. Jim FitzSimons Mailto:cherry@neta.com
Received on Saturday, 17 October 1998 14:04:10 UTC