Re: My #1 request for CSS3

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/, 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...


Received on Monday, 8 February 1999 13:15:42 UTC