Legoguy wrote:# support of png in ie is useless since it's doesn't support transparencies.. so the argument that says: moz did it once for png so wait another ten years to see ie support mng too is kind of weird
At my website I've implemented a workaround that makes Transparent PNG's supported in IE, via a filter that MS provided in DX. This must be done individually for sites though. And an ActiveX plugin for mng adds full support for transparent MNGs.
i'm really aware of that workaround since i use the same trick
but this is a trick that just completely goes against css spirit
<a href = "http://212.233.10.100/ouff/assets/perso/pokdb/index.asp">look here</a> and <a href = "http://212.233.10.100/ouff/assets/perso/pokdb2/index.asp">here</a> for the ie trick
it just doubles up the amount of tags just to render something.. that is definitely not a solution
ie can't handle png alpha..
even 8bits png render differently
regarding transparencies, seamonkey got paradoxal approach too... the filter attribute is not yet adopted by w3c and ie uses the filter attribute when moz uses -moz-opacity..
that is not usable to me and doesn't make sense to write twice more code.. even more frustrating when you do everything in order to validate your code... i would use flash then to achieve such effect (irony)
Legoguy wrote:# that well-known mng file is quite big and most of png files i see on the web too.. designers use it (and i use it too because of the lossless compression) and that's great but they don't seem to optimize their pictures.. what's woth then?
The fact that even though they aren't compressed they are nearly a quarter of the size of a BMP makes it worth everything. And MNG with Animation, that's like replacing Gif forever. Gif is absolutley nothing compared to the capabilities of MNG, which even supports dynamic content, complex image and sprites, embedding movies into the file, etc. MNG is nearly guaranteed to take over Gif eventually. Mozilla had the right idea of adopting it but they must've been drunk when they decided to remove it.
yes png is smaller than bmp but it is not smaller than jpg..
what do i use then? jpg .. especially for smaller images.. and small images are what is used for web graphics (not talking about photo that i would only give in png of course)
now regarding free format aspect, it seems like gif could be free by the end of the year. i found <a href ="http://slashdot.org/articles/03/06/20/0216233.shtml?tid=152&tid=155&tid=185&tid=99">this</a> the other day.. (but this is /. he ; ) )
i took a look at your <a href = "http://legographics.idwt.net/sample.mng">sample.mng</a> file and it weights 35 ko.. 35 ko for animated smilie.. isn't that too much?
this <a href = "http://212.233.10.100/ouff/assets/perso/matrix_emoticon_II.gif">one</a> gif shows much more and weight much less as well.. (c) deviant Art
mng has a lot to of nice features i agree but in the end that file size problem is a serious matter don't you think?
<b>edit:
i was pm and shown that the same gif i brought up there as an example could be much more ligther so i have to (and i'm glad to) admit that mng is better than gif on this matter then : )
here is the image link: <a href = "http://pmt.sourceforge.net/jeanjean/">here</a>
thanks to GlennRP</b>