MozillaZine

[Bug 18574] restore support for MNG and JNG

Discussion of bugs in Seamonkey
mtigas

User avatar
 
Posts: 430
Joined: August 11th, 2003, 8:04 pm

Post Posted August 23rd, 2004, 10:04 pm

http://pryan.org/firefox/MadmanNova/

New build. From maybe 24 hours ago but I didn't post here.
AVIARY-20040822-MNG.exe - 4.8MB

Readme
.mozconfig

Tried building with the ActiveX control, heh. Doesn't work--at least from where I try to use it in Topstyle.

Used MNG_BUILD_FULL_MNG this time.

Last time, the build didn't include icon image support I believe -- some bookmarks of mine that normally had the default "Firefox HTML document" icon had broken icons.

Switched from --enable-image-decoders=mng,gif,jpeg,bmp,xbm
to --enable-image-decoders=default,-png,mng

I'm pretty sure the -png disables libpng. THunderbird's default .mozconfig uses -xbm in it's decoder options to disable that format. I realized that I wouldn't have the dll files to check because this was a static build, but I also checked the dist/lib directory and found no sign of imgpng. (I think that's what was supposed to be there? There weren't any traces of png period, at least.)

I was planning on building an extension but realized that it's semi-complicated and there exists very little documentation for it. The old extensions that I linked to earlier are severely outdated--Firefox 0.9 and higher have a new extension system--thus I can't use it for reference.

Old GlennRP
 
Posts: 0
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm

Post Posted August 24th, 2004, 4:40 am

MadmanNova wrote:I'm pretty sure the -png disables libpng.

It should. You can compare the size of your distro with and without the "-png".
With "-png" should be 15-20k smaller. It would be interesting to know the exact
savings. ../glennrp

zachariah

User avatar
 
Posts: 586
Joined: September 30th, 2003, 12:44 pm
Location: Earth

Post Posted August 25th, 2004, 9:52 pm

Asa's latest comment has lead me to abandon trying to keep spam out of the bug.  I am responding to the comment here, and have also sent Asa an email.

I didn't think that this bug was a total lost cause, especially since there has been quite a bit of non-spam traffic on the bug lately.  But, because I respect Asa's opinion, his latest comment has convinced me not to bother with trying to keep the bug spam-free anymore.  I do value his input as (presumably) he has a better view of the big picture than I.

IMO native MNG support will be a part of Mozilla/Firefox/etc some day.  It is logical and inevitable that this web standard become part of the browser.  Sure, I could be wrong, but this is simply what I believe.

I have been very much enjoying the discussion in this thread, and do hope to see MNG support in the future.

________
Update: I received a positive and thorough email response from Asa.  He and I do see eye to eye, and seem to both have learned a little from each other.  The part of his email most relevant to this discussion was his response to my "prediction" that MNG is inevitable:
Asa (in an email) wrote:This isn't for public consumption, just yet, but I believe that you'll be wrong on this one. There are better ways to achieve animated png than the MNG spec. (One example would be a simple extension to PNG that included animation information). MNG is a massive spec that duplicates a lot of other already well written and coded image formats. The current MNG implementation includes a lame PNG implementation that's considerably larger and slower than our current PNG implementation. Adding animation to PNG would be trivial and would give 99% of web developers the one important thing they want from MNG which is 8 bit alpha animation. MNG just isn't necessary for that -- and certainly not the MNG implementation I've see to date.

I find this interesting.

Help MozillaZine: Donate! or Buy Something!

DopefishJustin
 
Posts: 90
Joined: August 26th, 2004, 10:09 am
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

Post Posted August 26th, 2004, 10:10 am

I'd be satisfied if there was a Firefox extension for MNG; I'm very surprised there isn't one yet. I wouldn't think it would be that hard given that it's possible to make complete builds with MNG.

zachariah

User avatar
 
Posts: 586
Joined: September 30th, 2003, 12:44 pm
Location: Earth

Post Posted August 26th, 2004, 11:25 am

DopefishJustin wrote:I'd be satisfied if there was a Firefox extension for MNG; I'm very surprised there isn't one yet. I wouldn't think it would be that hard given that it's possible to make complete builds with MNG.
I think a plug-in would be more appropriate (maybe even what you meant) than an extension, and it would be easier to get users to install it once the Missing Plugin Installer is finished.

Help MozillaZine: Donate! or Buy Something!

Old GlennRP
 
Posts: 0
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm

Post Posted August 28th, 2004, 5:58 pm

There is a move afoot to design and install a simplified MNG called APNG (Animated PNG) in moz.
See bug #257263 (discussion of proposed spec) and #257197 (implementation in moz)

damieng
 
Posts: 1
Joined: August 29th, 2004, 2:35 am

Post Posted August 29th, 2004, 4:00 am

I have kept quiet on the bugzilla MNG bug so as to not spam it. Like many others who voted for the bug, I had to stand people criticizing MNG and telling others to not spam the bug by advocating it. So, I'm glad I can finally write something about it, even if nobody reads it.

- MNG (the format)
Since I did some programming with the MNG format (for file conversions and size transformations), I had to learn the basics of the format. It is not simple, because it has many features, but it is clear and well documented. It's also easy to focus on a subset of it in order to do what you need without bothering about learning everything. So I basically think it is a good format for animations. If it was implemented in web browsers, it would be a boon to animated graphics on the web. With MNG, it is easy to create complex animations that don't take much space.

- the size
Since when is 200K a lot ? Animations are often bigger than that (sometimes 10x more), and you have to download them too. And people already download them all the time. The price for downloading an MNG-enabled browser would be quickly compensated by smaller animations if websites were using MNG.

- to plug or not to plug ?
Websites don't use MNG today because of the lack of browser support. They still wouldn't if there was an MNG plugin, because it is very difficult (for good reasons) to ask users to install something in order to view a website. So, a plugin or MNG-enabled builds are not a solution: MNG would only take off with built-in support in browsers, and MNG would only be really useful if it was widely used.

- the number of MNGs on the web
I have read in the bug spam the incredible argument that MNG should not be supported by Mozilla because it is not being used much on the web. How hard is it to understand a chicken-and-egg problem ? Besides, has anybody done real stats ? I use hundreds of MNG in one of my websites, but it is transparent for the user because I use a Java applet to display them.

- why do I use it ?
I started using MNG to replace GIF animations. There was some MNG support in Mozilla then, so I was hoping IE would adopt it too and I wouldn't have to use a Java applet eventually. My applet only supports MNG-LC, so I was also hoping that browser support would bring me all the features for MNG. Because of Mozilla regression and because of the expiration of the UNISYS patent, I am now thinking of going back to GIF. And goodbye the great animations I could have done with the full MNG.

- aPNG
I don't get it. It might have been useful in 1995 to replace GIF, but today it just looks like provocation for the thousands of people waiting for MNG support. If Mozilla supports that before MNG I am going to believe IE is our best hope for progress on the web.

- summary
MNG should be supported by Mozilla, but today it only makes sense if it is a full built-in support.

- since this discussing was created for spamming
Some comments I would have liked to reply to in the bug:
> This is an enhancement, and is not a regression because it was purposely removed
-> it was a regression on purpose, hence an enhancement ?
> This lack of official recommendation and lack of support in a global perspective
makes it pointless to include MNG because it generally will not be used in a
general-use public web browser such as Mozilla/Firefox. This makes it cruft.
-> so, web progress is cruft for Mozilla ? Is is only aiming at supporting the existing crap ?

netdragon

User avatar
 
Posts: 5475
Joined: February 1st, 2003, 5:30 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post Posted August 29th, 2004, 2:34 pm

First of all, I'd like to thank Alexander for the great work. I know how hard it is to work on such a large patch that touches so many files.

First of all, I'd like to thank Alexander for the great work. I know how hard it is to work on such a large patch that touches so many files. Here are his latest updates:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18574#c533
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18574#c517


PLEASE test the patch http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18574#c517 if you want this to be sped along! Don't comment any longer unless you have information about your tests.
Free yourself from the illusion. The heart of a dragon is pure love, honor and truth. The dragon's power is meant to protect the weak and uphold love and honor.

opi
 
Posts: 98
Joined: February 19th, 2004, 7:37 am
Location: Germany, Saxony, Leipzig

Post Posted August 31st, 2004, 9:28 am

@Nova

is it possible to upload your builds to sf.net/projects/mngzilla so we have a more central place for mng enabled builds?
Also I don't know if "-png" is realy processed correct.

I've started now my own weblog on http://www.opiswelt.de/plog ... comments are welcome.

I will post there updates to mozilla and the mng patch. Also I will try to catch up misinformations from some people and will tell you the correct ones.

vvukicevic
 
Posts: 22
Joined: July 10th, 2004, 7:14 pm

Post Posted August 31st, 2004, 10:03 am

zachariah wrote:IMO native MNG support will be a part of Mozilla/Firefox/etc some day. It is logical and inevitable that this web standard become part of the browser. Sure, I could be wrong, but this is simply what I believe.


MNG is not a "web standard", nor is it compatible with any such standard.

kyber
 
Posts: 5
Joined: August 21st, 2004, 11:35 am

Post Posted August 31st, 2004, 3:09 pm

This just ocurred to me.
I should start using *this* on all the images that could use it. Heck, it is part of the spec.
<pre>
<object data="/images/complexfuzzyalpha.jng" type="image/x-jng">
<object data="/images/massive.png" type="image/png">
Wife's face that I decided to hover over page content
</object>
</object>
or
<object data="/images/crispbeautifulfullcolor.mng" type="video/x-mng">
<object data="/images/cheapassalternate.gif" type="image/gif">
Cute fluttering bird following mouse around or something
</object>
</object>
</pre>
Such stuff falls nicely into my attitude towards neat bits of the web tech you wish browsers would support. You can't force it on people, but you *can* offer it as a bonus for supporting browsers.
I use that same philosophy with opacity/-moz-opacity, border-radius/-moz-border-radius, png translucency, position: fixed and now... I think I will start doing it with MNG/JNG.

zachariah

User avatar
 
Posts: 586
Joined: September 30th, 2003, 12:44 pm
Location: Earth

Post Posted August 31st, 2004, 9:33 pm

kyber, yes that is the way to go about doing it :)

------

vvukicevic wrote:
zachariah wrote:IMO native MNG support will be a part of Mozilla/Firefox/etc some day. It is logical and inevitable that this web standard become part of the browser. Sure, I could be wrong, but this is simply what I believe.


MNG is not a "web standard", nor is it compatible with any such standard.
MNG is a standard. It is an image format created with the intent that it would be used on the web. It is no stretch to call it a web standard. Web standards include HTML, XHTML, ECMAScript, PNG, CSS, DOM, WCAG, Web Forms, etc.

HTML and CSS are both compatible with images (MNG), scripting, and objects (MNG). The MNG spec doesn't contradict any specification that I know of.


A web standard is a public definition of a particular technology intended for use on the web. Because it it public and designed for the web, following it leads to greater reach of information on the web through device-independent interoperability. Web standards need not be W3 recommendations.

As an example Javascript is not a standard, but was created with the intention of being used on the web. ECMAScript is the standard version of Javascript. This makes ECMAScript a web standard as well.
(also, both Javascript and ECMAScript are compatible with HTML and CSS, as is also the case with MNG, not because of something in their implementation but because of the way HTML and CSS were designed)


I'm not really even sure what you were trying to get at, but I can't find any part of your statement which is veridical.

Help MozillaZine: Donate! or Buy Something!

opi
 
Posts: 98
Joined: February 19th, 2004, 7:37 am
Location: Germany, Saxony, Leipzig

Post Posted September 23rd, 2004, 3:27 pm

New plugins for linux available ... more on http://opiswelt.de/plog/

kyber
 
Posts: 5
Joined: August 21st, 2004, 11:35 am

Post Posted September 26th, 2004, 9:55 pm

opi wrote:New plugins for linux available ... more on http://opiswelt.de/plog/


And new MNGzilla builds. Excellent!
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfile ... _id=108408

lemi4

User avatar
 
Posts: 1
Joined: November 21st, 2004, 11:48 pm
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

Post Posted November 22nd, 2004, 1:42 am

I was just browsing around looking for a Win32 GUI frontend for BZip2, going through Info-ZIP, thus rediscovering PNG and MNG, winding up here, went on browsing the Bugzilla entry and the MNG spec pages, and I just had another thought...

Okay then, Opi's done his share, now how 'bout we start doing ours? Let's start creating MNGs... There's the GIMP and its animation package, its Windows version if you prefer, or any other raster image manipulater you like or can think of. The sooner critical mass is reached the better incentive there is to improving MNG support; plus it'd mean cooler animations on the web \:D/

(the first thought was MNG-VLC as a simpler alternative to MNG, but I guess that one's been done to death ;) )

PS.OOT: while we're at it does anyone have a frontend for WinBzip2? Or can anyone point me to resources where I can learn to make one using Python or some other n00bie language? I'm tired of being a non-programmer; if I could learn to program then I'd help implementing MNG myself :P

Update: hmm.. seems the GIMP animation package link went dead... wonder what's up?
cheers,
Lemi4:)
visit my mind-Dumpster

Return to SeaMonkey Bugs


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest