james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Knauf <akn...@xtra.co.nz>
Subject Re: cvs commit: jakarta-james/src/xdocs/images james_config_load_balance.png james_config_secondary.png james_config_smart_host.png
Date Mon, 03 Feb 2003 09:54:53 GMT
The trouble with PNG in the past has been poor support from microsoft. 
 IE has a fair proportion of the browser market cornered and provided 
poor support for PNG up until (I think) one of the point versions of 
IE4.  The trouble, if I remember correctly, was to do with the treatment 
of transparency.

Other browsers - in particular open source browsers - have had good 
support for PNG for longer than IE.  This is probably due to the fact 
that PNG is an open alternative to GIF.

As far as I know, all major and most minor browsers now have excellent 
support for PNG.  Most authoring tools and image manipulation tools have 
support, too - although the out of the box windows tools don't.

 All that is left is for graphics libs to catch up.  When last I looked 
(over a year ago) java had no support for PNG in its Java2D libs.

If we are talking about using PNG for the James web site, I'm all for 
it.  PNG can do stuff that GIF can't (such as transparency) and is free 
- unlike GIF.



Noel J. Bergman wrote:

>>Bill Parducci contributed images to accompany SMTP delivery documentation
>These are PNG images contributed by one of our users.  I haven't seen the
>accompanying words, yet, but I like the idea that people are helping to
>improve up the site.  Do we want to allow PNG format, or do we want to
>require JPG?  How common is PNG support?
>	--- Noel
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: james-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: james-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

To unsubscribe, e-mail: james-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: james-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

View raw message