httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Sutherland <>
Subject Re: [Fwd: png icons for apache]
Date Mon, 18 Sep 2000 22:03:54 GMT
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 wrote:
> 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.

I know - it's just you were the one objecting :-)

> >  > 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 -
> >  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'.

Yup. One thing we should work on is making Apache work "out of the box":
make the defaults as sensible as possible, clearly document the config
files, etc.

> >  > 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.

True; since this can be automated, though, we can just add this to the
tarball rolling instructions? Maintain one set (preferably PNG, I think?)
as authoritative, then autogenerate the GIF version from that in each

> 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.

I think someone's already done this; they certainly quoted the file size
changes, and there wasn't much in it.


View raw message