Date:	Tue, 4 Apr 2000 05:31:11 +0600 (LKT)
From:	Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel <kalum AT lintux DOT cx>
X-Sender:	root AT darkstar DOT grendel DOT net
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: help with a bit stream....
In-Reply-To:	<38E8CBA9.C4D598FE@americasm01.nt.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.4.10.10004040529340.1275-100000@darkstar.grendel.net>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Campbell, Rolf [SKY:1U32:EXCH] wrote:

> Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel wrote:
> 
> > I know that GIF's suck etc..But the problem is that animated GIF's are a
> > great thing, and there is no other way to achive this other than using
> > large amounts of Javascript to do the animations...
> >
> > Also on this PNG VS GIF subject, how many browsers support transparent
> > PNG's?
> >
> > So unfortunately we have no choice but to use GIF's whenever we want a
> > transparent image, or a animation... :-(
> 
> Well, you could invent 'animated PNG' format, then add the code to the
> mozilla project along with transparent PNG support.

Well this would be pointless if Internet Exploder doesn't decide to
support it too. As it is IE that calls the shots in the browser market
now... :-(

BTW It still is simpler using animated gif's, no matter what some people
might say...

Kalum

Hi, I'm a signature virus. plz set me as your signature and help me spread
:)

- Raw text -