 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> b) Netscape for Solaris is after all that different from Netscape for
> Windows (or are you using Linux? Anyways). It wouldn't be the only difference.
>
I have no problem here (Netscape 4.75 for linux) and I had no problem
at school (Netscape 4.08 for Solaris)...
--
* Doctor Jekyll had something * mailto:ber### [at] iname com
* to Hyde... * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
*******************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Greg M. Johnson" <gre### [at] my-dejanewscom> wrote in message
news:39DCB42D.82BE9596@my-dejanews.com...
> Josh English wrote:
>
> > The closest thing to a problem I have with png is that Nescape doesn't
> > display a png file in the message window like it will with jpg. I have
to
> > click on it and lose the message.
>
> I think it actually has to load the Quicktime plug-in. And for me, I
cannot
> scroll up and down on an image which is larger than my small window, as
was the
> case with today's "Emoti-Pov". It all boils down to that Dilbert cartoon
> where the girder has fallen on one employee's head and Catbert reminds
him,
> "Nobody else is complaining." It's just like the html issue.
Sorry about Emoti-Pov png... but jpg didn't like that image (sharp
transition and near pure red, green, blue). I have no problem seeing it with
Outlook Express. Nonetheless I will mind that Netscape has some problems
with this great format. I think some programs have (had?) problems with gif
too... is this right?
Povingly,
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have a 280*210 82k png due for upload. It has single pixel reds and
greens that are killed with lowest jpeg compression. What format would
you suggest?
Alf
Greg M. Johnson <gre### [at] my-dejanewscom> wrote in message
news:39DC7492.16B4CD84@my-dejanews.com...
> If we're going to get fussy about it, how about also knocking out
PNG's
> and all animations other than MPG-1?
>
> John VanSickle wrote:
>
> > Can the server be configured to reject attachments with the BMP
> > extension?
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:45:42 +0100, Alf Peake wrote:
>I have a 280*210 82k png due for upload. It has single pixel reds and
>greens that are killed with lowest jpeg compression. What format would
>you suggest?
PNG would probably be best for that, I don't have a problem with PNG, though
some people do.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
2:33am up 9 days, 4:52, 2 users, load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.02
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steve wrote:
> PNG would probably be best for that, I don't have a problem with PNG, though
> some people do.
I don't have a problem with PNG, it's an excellent format. I have a problem with
Nutscrape. :(
Stupid POS diplays them inline if they're in HTML, but uses the plugin if
they're attached, and the Edit button is grayed out for the association.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
My point in the whole affair was that those who say, "Let heads roll," usually
aren't safe for long themselves.
PNG is a very minor inconvenience to me.
There are a bunch of eclectic video formats that people keep dredging up, forcing
some of us to either pass them by or slop through a bunch of bleeding edge codecs.
David Fontaine wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>
> > PNG would probably be best for that, I don't have a problem with PNG, though
> > some people do.
>
> I don't have a problem with PNG, it's an excellent format. I have a problem with
> Nutscrape. :(
> Stupid POS diplays them inline if they're in HTML, but uses the plugin if
> they're attached, and the Edit button is grayed out for the association.
>
> --
> David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
> My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
>
> Can the server be configured to reject attachments with the BMP
> extension?
As they say, anything can be done. I have never done it but it could be
scanned after received for the string "anything.bmp" and erase the post.
That can be beaten if someone wants to so the right way to do it would
be to search for the identifier of a BMP type graphic which servers and
browsers already do.
--
http://www.giwersworld.org/ is not blocked by Surf Watch.
How bad can the former be? How good can the latter be?
-- Iron Webmaster, 84
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
> If we're going to get fussy about it, how about also knocking out PNG's
> and all animations other than MPG-1?
Don't know about IE but NS 4.75 now handles PNG format. That is worth
the upgrade.
--
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
A spanking.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 136
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Josh English wrote:
>
> The closest thing to a problem I have with png is that Nescape doesn't
> display a png file in the message window like it will with jpg. I have to
> click on it and lose the message.
4.75 does.
--
Q. "Do you realize I can defame you without penalty?"
A, "Do you realize I can let you?"
-- The Iron Webmaster, 31
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
> "Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
>
> > If we're going to get fussy about it, how about also knocking out PNG's
> > and all animations other than MPG-1?
>
> Don't know about IE but NS 4.75 now handles PNG format. That is worth
> the upgrade.
Yup! Even though it was several megs...
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
