Re: ... aPNG (Animated PNG)

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:37:48 -0400 "Glenn Randers-Pehrson <glennrp>"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Kato-N wrote:
> 
> 
> > By the way, if APNG could be approved in the png-list and the PNG spec
> > would be revised, would MNG which is the superset of PNG also be
> > needed revised?
> 
> Yes.  A MNG containing aPNGs would work but would be grossly
> inefficient.

OMG. The longer this is being discussed, the crazier it becomes. The
consequences of trying to extend PNG to allow animation seem to be quite
extreme. 

1. A controversial change to a fundamental design decision
2. New chunk ordering rules that may invalidate existing editors
3. Complicated interactions with MNG that have to be dealt with

And all of these things have to get affirmative votes. 
Does anyone really believe this will work?

I really think the only feasible way of proceeding is the "PNG animations"
approach that I outlined that will keep the definition of PNG untouched.
That and the original idea of a rogue extension to PNG without PNG group
approval and in defiance of ISO/W3C.

MSB

-- 
Bad comments reveal the bad programmer.


--
Send the message body "help" to [email protected]