httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From TOKI...@aol.com
Subject Re: [Fwd: png icons for apache]
Date Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:28:13 GMT

In a message dated 00-09-18 15:15:49 EDT, James writes...

>  > No. To use your term... 'Why bother?'
>  
>  How about rephrasing that to why NOT bother? It's not as if it costs us
>  anything - a few moments of time, and an extra couple of K on the tarball?
>  Hardly a big deal either way.

Go for it. I think you are talking to the wrong person, however.
It doesn't matter what I think. You need to talk to someone who
rolls the Apache tarballs.

>  > Until there is some real reason to change formats .PNG will still
>  > remain a 'backroom' graphics format and the GIF/PNG issues will
>  > remain. Yes... I know... .PNG is actually better... but that and the
>  > price of tea will get you to China. Joe Public doesn't know that and
>  > doesn't see the difference ( or want to ).
>  
>  He doesn't need to. Look at the Validator WWW site - validator.w3.org.
>  They do exactly what I'm advocating: GIFs and PNGs, and you get whichever
>  one is more appropriate, thanks to Apache.

Roger that. Content negotiation will 'do the right thing' for users.

By 'Joe Public' I didn't mean 'Joe User'... I meant all the 'Joe Admins'
out there who aren't computer people but are actually the ones
running all these millions of Web sites. The ones who just click 
buttons on Frontpage or DreamWever and don't even know what 
the difference between JPG and GIF are much less
GIF and something called PNG. THEY are the ones who 'don't
care and don't want to'.

>  > Is someone actively trying to sue Apache into royalty payments? Where
>  > do they think the money will come from for the royalties, IBM?
>  > Covalent? Brian Belhendorf?
>  
>  Does it matter? I just think we should offer the clients both. If they can
>  use PNGs and we can supply them, why not do it?

Why not, indeed. Your point is not lost. It just seems (to me) like a
solution in search of a problem and that's why I said 'Why bother'.

>  > I guess I'm just a little radical. If owners of GIF think they can
>  > start squeezing some people for royalties and not others then I say
>  > let them try. I can't think of a better test case for the lawyers to
>  > have this out once and for all than for someone to be stupid enough to
>  > try and press the Apache group itself into paying royalties for
>  > using/distributing simple .GIF files.
>  > 
>  > Bring it on. Get it over with, once and for all.
>  > The case is weak and any good lawyer will have a field day.
>  
>  I'm not bothered either way, but why shouldn't we offer PNGs??

No reason other than the same reason people don't offer
compressed versions of their Web sites, which would REALLY
help the whole bandwidth situation. It's a bother and most 
people just don't want to bother generating ( or maintaining )
2 sets of anything.

If you really see this as a problem... do what the process
allows... submit a patch with new insertions for the tarball
and run it up the flagpole and see if it flys.

Yours
Kevin Kiley
http://www.RemoteCommunications.com
http://www.RemoteCommunications.com/rctpd/ - Free IETF encoding Server



Mime
View raw message