Petition for Proper PNG Support in WinIE

[mdipi]

Yeah you read the title correct. I encorage all of you to sign it over at Ultrashock. I think that it will work so its worth a shot:

http://forums.ultrashock.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=27219

[nobody]

I think there was a link to someting like this not too long ago.
But since there are two different petitions, we should all sign it as well

[mdipi]

i donno, maybe it was the same one. but if not we just still sign this one, i just did, 8050 sigs so far!

[lostinbeta]

Edwin already posted that here like a month or 2 ago ;)

[mdipi]

oh well um...just for those of you who didnt see it then lol/

[morse]

i didnt

[mdipi]

see ^
| thats why i posted it! lol

[reverendflash]

The major reason PNG's aren't supported, is because of their file size... Not because they can't, or won't...

a png will be 150k for the same image a jpeg or gif can do in 10% of the file size...

That..... is why Flash is sooo much better...

remember, over 65% of the US still uses a dial-up to access the web. The world is even higher...

Revhttp://www.aulman.com/rev.gif

[mdipi]

rev png is smaller than gif...

[reverendflash]

depending on how you use it...

.gif can be extremely large, or small...

png can only be small in 8 bit ... 32 bit with transparency is much larger...

If you dont' believe me, try it... same image in .gif, and .png ...

I think you will see that .gif is smaller...

Revhttp://www.aulman.com/rev.gif

[mdipi]

but png also has WAYYY more colours. if you look at the artical *dipi digs it up*

read this artical, its basicly whta i am trying tro say:
The PNG format is superior to the GIF format: When the same image is saved in both PNG and GIF formats, in an editor with full and proper support for both formats, the PNG image is typically a smaller file size, is free from royalties, patents, and copyright restrictions that hinder the GIF format, and can use more than 256 colours - up to 48-bit colour.

The PNG format is a World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) recommendation: Microsoft has repeatedly stated their renewed commitment to web standards, so implementing full PNG support would be the next logical step in fulfilling this promise, especially since it was supposed to be implemented over four years ago.

The PNG format supports alpha transparency: Anybody who has designed images for use online knows the woes of trying to make that image appear smooth on any background. Some designers create different images to be used on different background colours, other designers simply leave the edges jagged, and still others just give their images a solid background. It's a bad way to go, but it's the only choice right now. Using PNG images with alpha transparency would eliminate all of these problems, and make the work of web designers a lot easier.

[reverendflash]

true, but file size is still a major concern!

Also, there are a bunch of WC3 recommendations that are still not included by all browsers... Why not add these to the petition?

The png is cool when you use 32 bit, but the file size is huge...

Flash handles png very well, so that is a major reason for not putting it high on the priority list...

My point is... this is a waste of time... MS is not going to add something just because they get a petition to do so.

BTW - the web is based on 216 colors that show the same in all browsers and platforms... It's called Websafe colors...

Revhttp://www.aulman.com/rev.gif

[lostinbeta]

I never signed the petition. I don't think the web is ready for .pngs. Granted they can be useful, theres still a majority of people out there that don't have faster modems, and is it really worth it beefing up file size just because people do have faster modems?

And not all browsers show them the same, it isn't just IE that is weird with it, it is every browser.

And as rev stated about websafe colors, just because .png images support more colors, that doesn't mean they are better. It is more of a reason they act retarded in different browsers.

All of this has been stated before, but it was my reasoning for not signing the petition.


If you want to sign a more useful petition, sign Colin Moocks petition for Macromedia to build a better preloading API...

http://www.moock.org/blog/archives/000010.html

[reverendflash]

The PNG format is superior to the GIF format: When the same image is saved in both PNG and GIF formats, in an editor with full and proper support for both formats, the PNG image is typically a smaller file size, is free from royalties, patents, and copyright restrictions that hinder the GIF format, and can use more than 256 colours - up to 48-bit colour.

This quote is misleading at best. If you take an image, optimize it for the best quality/file size, you will find that a .gif is smaller. Most of the time, jpeg (which uses millions of colors) will work just as well, just needs to be thought out a little more...

I would rather Flash be able to dynamically load .gifs, along with jpegs, rather than pushing the browsers to use pngs...

Revhttp://www.aulman.com/rev.gif

[mdipi]

yeah i see the point, but i would still like to see the png supported. but rev, dynamicly loaded gifs...mmmm sounds yummy! you should start a petition!

[reverendflash]

it already was implimented with Generator...

They removed it with MX...

;)

Revhttp://www.aulman.com/rev.gif

[mdipi]

i still dont know what generator was... and if it was so good why did they take it out>?

[reverendflash]

Generator was the only way to dynamically load images, etc. into Flash at runtime.

It was, however, server side, and was extremely costly ($90,000) to impliment. Once implimented, however, it was a lot easier to manipulate and track, since all the work was done on the server end...

BTW - there were only about 50 of us - WorldWide - that used Generator...

That is why they decided to "merge" Gen2 into Flash MX... They just dropped a bunch of stuff out, to keep the player small...

Revhttp://www.aulman.com/rev.gif

[mdipi]

you used Generator right rev? but thats cool, but 90k!

[reverendflash]

my site is still running on Gen2, along with www.ayoungkim.com, plus a few others...

The biggest problem was trying to find an ISP that would allow you to install Gen2 on their server... That said, since Gen2 runs on the server side, I can host all of the dynamic content on my server, then just use an absolute path to call it from HTML on another server...

Revhttp://www.aulman.com/rev.gif

[mdipi]

but who would pay the 90k for it? thats cool though!

[reverendflash]

as a development house, 90k is nothing to spend, if you can charge your clients for dynamic content (it wasn't available any other way before MX) for their Flash movies.

With a "bridge" like asp, or php, or the like, Gen2 could make dynamic Flash with an extremely small download on the user's end, and could give the impression of a unique view for every visit... or could update content based on databases, or by a feed from another source (weather, stocks, news, etc) ...

They just had it priced all wrong, and couldn't tell people how to use it, since no one at MM knew how (they just knew what it could do, not how to make it happen)...

Disney was one of the first to go Generator...

Revhttp://www.aulman.com/rev.gif