Nick Gilbert wrote:
>>> Can't disagree that PNG is better, but the XP built-in viewers are
>>> buggy, and Win2K and below doesn't support it at all natively. Not
>>> everyone has a proper viewer :-(
>
> IE 5.0+ can view standard raster PNGs perfectly and this comes with
> Windows 2000, so I'm not sure why your Win2k box can't display a PNG.
I didn't say _I_ couldn't display them, I said not everyone.
> Everyone on this list will have something installed which can view a
> raster PNG. IE is only buggy if the PNG has
> vectors/filters/transparency or other advanced features of PNG, but
> that's not relevant to a screenshot which contains none of those
> things.
We're a bit off topic here, but life would be dull if we had nothing to
argue about ;-)
I used IrfanView 3.92 (the current release) to generate some PNG files
for the TSVN manual last week. XP file & fax viewer and XP Paint
displayed them as a random mess of colours for any compression level >
0. According to Irfan, the mess is due to a M$ bug, and I now have a
patched version of IrfanView which generates M$-readable files. You're
right, IE can display them OK (what does that say about M$
code-sharing), but it's not the default viewer in XP.
I'm not saying anything against PNG. Just that the default settings in
M$ don't always work very well, which might create additional 'what the
heck is this picture supposed to be' type list traffic. OTOH, my email
seems to have generated another 3, so that was a wasted argument ;-)
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
Received on Fri Oct 29 13:59:09 2004