Removal of MNG/JNG support and builds

Hooded One · Post by **Hooded One** » June 7th, 2003, 7:23 pm

willll wrote:90 kb out of 6745, is not even 1%.

Actually, it's about 1.3%, but your point stands regardless.

What I'm wondering is what's so different about the extension that it's 191k unpacked, but the one that was taken out was 300k.

tseelee · Post by **tseelee** » June 7th, 2003, 7:23 pm

willll wrote:um, the windows xpi is only about 90 kb, 191 kb unpacked. 90 kb out of 6745, is not even 1%. or since when has 191 kb out of 18.5 MB equaled five percent? even if the decoder somehow 300 kb unpacked, that's still not even 2% of the total size.

Please check your numbers again. In addition, consider the fact that your image is a png...

Homer · Post by **Homer** » June 7th, 2003, 7:34 pm

someone mentioned 5% earlier, didn't recheck that number, but a decoder that exceeds the size of all the rest of the image decoders combined, for a format that isn't used beyond technology demonstrations at this point, is wasted code

if someone can make the overhead reasonable, this could be merged back into the trunk once IE begins adding support and web developers can make use of the format. Given IE's isses with transparent PNG support, MNG support will be a long time in coming, giving some enterprising developer an opportunity to make the decoder efficient and beneficial to the browser. Until then, its a hallmark example of bloatware at its finest.

tseelee · Post by **tseelee** » June 7th, 2003, 8:31 pm

Homer wrote:Until then, its a hallmark example of bloatware at its finest.

That comment disparages Mozilla Mail, which people actually use. ;-)

Ashitaka · Post by **Ashitaka** » June 21st, 2003, 6:44 pm

Homer wrote:If 5% of the program code is there for rendering something that no one uses, how does that contribute to the aims of the project? The more useless and extraneous crap that gets added, the slower and more bloated Mozilla will become.

Bumping the thread, because this comment makes me annoyed...

I already use MNG on my website. Visitors have been upgrading to Mozilla so they can see the pictures proper. I am also planning to make an MNG animation centre, focusing on 24-bit true-colour pictures and transparency stunts which you can't do with GIF. MNG support also has nearly 500 votes as a bug.

MNG is not extraneous bloat, and once it is slimmed down a little it should be added back in immediately (before 1.5 beta).

tseelee · Post by **tseelee** » June 21st, 2003, 6:57 pm

Ashitaka wrote:I already use MNG on my website. Visitors have been upgrading to Mozilla so they can see the pictures proper. I am also planning to make an MNG animation centre, focusing on 24-bit true-colour pictures and transparency stunts which you can't do with GIF. MNG support also has nearly 500 votes as a bug.

MNG is not extraneous bloat, and once it is slimmed down a little it should be added back in immediately (before 1.5 beta).

I'm glad you're contributing to the MNG cause in a substantive way, but seriously, how much of the web population visits your and similar sites? I sure don't want it in until it becomes a standard, because it has been anonymous on the web for YEARS.

There's a good reason Mozilla is moving towards making even essential functions extensions. This one CRIES out for it. And no, I don't see any need to make it more of a member of Firebird than, say, DOM Inspector. Many ppl have voted for the alt image tag, too.

Ashitaka · Post by **Ashitaka** » June 21st, 2003, 7:18 pm

Oh, come on. If MNG is turned into a plugin, nobody will download it, so nobody will use MNG. It's the chicken-and-egg problem mentioned earlier in this thread.

old momokatte · Post by **old momokatte** » June 21st, 2003, 7:27 pm

Ashitaka wrote:MNG is not extraneous bloat, and once it is slimmed down a little it should be added back in immediately (before 1.5 beta).

Both the MNG and PNG libraries have been trimmed down a little, and the originals have not been removed from the Mozilla Suite (1.4 branch). MNG support will remain in Mozilla 1.4, and should return to Firebird as soon as Glenn and Gerard are able to post a patch that meets the requirements outlined to get MNG support back into the trunk.

They're doing good work, and I'm sure they are very happy to see the vote support.

Post by **alanjstr** » June 21st, 2003, 8:12 pm

Ashitaka wrote:Oh, come on. If MNG is turned into a plugin, nobody will download it, so nobody will use MNG. It's the chicken-and-egg problem mentioned earlier in this thread.

Lots of people use Flash and Java. There are lots of other technologies that are in a similar situation. Some flourish, some fail. Be sure to put a prominent link on your website for where someone can get an MNG plugin and they, too, can see the fantastic capabilities.

tseelee · Post by **tseelee** » June 21st, 2003, 8:35 pm

alanjstr wrote:Lots of people use Flash and Java. There are lots of other technologies that are in a similar situation.

Thank you. Why should MNG get special treatment when it's nowhere near a standard AND has been supported by Mozilla for years? Why should everyone be bothered with code they never use just so MNG won't die or something? I think Moz and Fb have been extremely kind even now, with pledge of support if code's slimmed down just a bit. I just wish it'd stay an extension for a while longer.

Ashitaka · Post by **Ashitaka** » June 22nd, 2003, 9:54 am

alanjstr wrote:Be sure to put a prominent link on your website for where someone can get an MNG plugin and they, too, can see the fantastic capabilities.

MNG is supposed to be a replacement for animated GIFs. Nobody's going to download a plugin to view animated GIFs, it's too nit-picky! The only way I could get people to do that is if someone has prerelease movies for download in MNG format or something insane like that.

Hey, there's an idea

tseelee · Post by **tseelee** » June 22nd, 2003, 11:00 am

Ashitaka wrote:MNG is supposed to be a replacement for animated GIFs.

That it hasn't points to two problems: 1) It's not a standard, so that's a good excuse for ignoring it; 2) No one (figuratively speaking of course) is using it.

Ashitaka wrote:Nobody's going to download a plugin to view animated GIFs, it's too nit-picky!

True, but the question reverts to why everyone else should bear the cost of code bloat. Moreoever, what's the number, not just percentage, of users who won't install the xpi?

Ashitaka wrote:The only way I could get people to do that is if someone has prerelease movies for download in MNG format.

Again. this shows the lack of compelling reasons for its inclusion.

Ashitaka · Post by **Ashitaka** » June 22nd, 2003, 12:06 pm

tseelee wrote:That it hasn't points to two problems: 1) It's not a standard, so that's a good excuse for ignoring it; 2) No one (figuratively speaking of course) is using it.

I wish I lived in Figuratively, everything seems to be so much simpler there.

In Reality, however, MNG seems to be becoming popular in Asia, especially among blogger-types.

Post by **shadytrees** » June 22nd, 2003, 12:07 pm

Write a virus, set it loose, and presto!

tseelee · Post by **tseelee** » June 22nd, 2003, 3:10 pm

Ashitaka wrote:I wish I lived in Figuratively, everything seems to be so much simpler there.

It's the same type of statement as Windows is on every desktop. Certainly closer to reality. The disclaimer could be replaced by "almost" in any case.

Ashitaka wrote:In Reality, however, MNG seems to be becoming popular in Asia, especially among blogger-types.

AFAIK IE doesn't support the format either. So I don't see a problem for Mozilla.org. As for its rising popularity, my hats off, but I don't think they have satisfied the reasons for the removal of MNG support.

I've seen one MNG (a demo file) so far in my life. I'd suppose most people (certainly the non-anime type) have similar experience. I love better technology, but if someone's willing to try Firebird, why not download an XPI as well?