Re: Bug#127849: GIF Images Still In Use
Josip Rodin said:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 12:32:12PM +0800, Andrew Shugg wrote:
> > > I haven't a shred of doubt that if we just switched to PNG, there would be
> > > enough people complaining to make reading this list a pain. :|
> >
> > Me either. However, I can think of no good reason* not to generate all
> > images in both GIF and PNG format: or even better, GIF, JPG and PNG.
> > Content negotiation is already required to be enabled on Debian web
> > sites, so an inline image can be requested as:
> >
> > <img src="http://www.debian.org/foo"; />
> >
> > ... and depending on what the requesting browser can support, they'll
> > get served up foo.png, foo.jpg or foo.gif.
>
> And this would stop complaints... how? :) It seems more likely that it would
> be even more broken for some.
Why? It's the system that's already used to serve the HTML pages. Can
you give me an example of a situation where it doesn't work?
It would stop complaints from:
a) people whose browsers can't handle PNG, by sending them GIF or JPG
b) people whose browsers can handle PNG and don't like GIF, by sending
them PNG
Browsers don't care about file extensions, as long as the MIME
information is sent. And it will be, by the content negotiation engine.
If there's a graphical browser out there that requests '/foo' and gets a
GIF file back with the MIME type "image/gif" and DOESN'T know how to
display it, then I haven't heard of it. How about all the dynamically
generated banner ads, web page "hit" counters and suchlike? Their URIs
may end in .cgi or .cfm or .pl, and yet you still see the image that
they send to the browser, don't you?
I continue to be puzzled by your apparent NIH attitude to suggestions.
Andrew.
--
Andrew Shugg <andrew@neep.com.au> http://www.neep.com.au/
"Just remember, Mr Fawlty, there's always someone worse off than yourself."
"Is there? Well I'd like to meet him. I could do with a good laugh."
Reply to: