What is some good software for creating graphics for html?
-
-
Re: software
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:04:38 -0600, Tyler <Fandango518@ao l.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> What is some good software for creating graphics for html?
>
>[/color]
I recommend you only use jpg and gif formats on the web. Any graphics
software can make those, from Microsoft Paint on up, so pick any graphics
software within budget and which comes recommended by graphics experts.
Read through comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.images - I'm sure you'll find
many recommendations without even needing to post to ask.
-
Re: software
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 20:15:19 -0500, Neal <neal413@spamrc n.com> declared
in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:[color=blue]
>
> I recommend you only use jpg and gif formats on the web.[/color]
png is preferable to gif in most cases.
--
Mark Parnell
Comment
-
Re: software
Mark Parnell <webmaster@clar kecomputers.com .au> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I recommend you only use jpg and gif formats on the web.[/color]
>
>png is preferable to gif in most cases.[/color]
Agreed, but it's a pain in the rear that png's need to be fixed so that
they don't trigger IE's png gamma issue.
--
Spartanicus
Comment
-
Re: software
Spartanicus <me@privacy.net > writes:[color=blue]
> Mark Parnell <webmaster@clar kecomputers.com .au> wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> I recommend you only use jpg and gif formats on the web.[/color]
> >
> >png is preferable to gif in most cases.[/color]
>
> Agreed, but it's a pain in the rear that png's need to be fixed so that
> they don't trigger IE's png gamma issue.[/color]
True. Though if you don't need exact colour matching (at least not
with anything other than other pngs) the file size reduction is a nice
bonus.
--
Chris
Comment
-
Re: software
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 07:08:18 +0000, Spartanicus <me@privacy.net >
declared in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:[color=blue]
>
> Agreed, but it's a pain in the rear that png's need to be fixed so that
> they don't trigger IE's png gamma issue.[/color]
Yes. And of course the fact that IE doesn't support alpha transparency.
--
Mark Parnell
Comment
-
Re: software
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Mark Parnell wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 07:08:18 +0000, Spartanicus <me@privacy.net >
> declared in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:[color=green]
> >
> > Agreed, but it's a pain in the rear that png's need to be fixed so that
> > they don't trigger IE's png gamma issue.[/color]
>
> Yes. And of course the fact that IE doesn't support alpha transparency.[/color]
MSIE sends an Accept header saying that it explicitly accepts GIF and
JPEG, but not PNG. So turn on content negotiation, and don't send
them PNG. Easy-peasy: those who can, get the enhanced PNG; those that
can't, get whatever scruff fallback you can be bothered to send them.
I don't really understand the widespread determination to smooth-over
the inadequacies of a now-ageing operating-system component, in ways
that often prevent browsers which are both better and WWW-compatible
from showing what they are capable of.
Comment
-
Re: software
Alan J. Flavell wrote:[color=blue]
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Mark Parnell wrote:
>[color=green]
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 07:08:18 +0000, Spartanicus <me@privacy.net >
>> declared in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> it's a pain in the rear that png's need to be fixed
>>> so that they don't trigger IE's png gamma issue.[/color]
>>
>> Yes. And of course the fact that IE doesn't support alpha
>> transparency.[/color]
>
> MSIE sends an Accept header saying that it explicitly accepts GIF
> and JPEG, but not PNG. So turn on content negotiation, and don't
> send them PNG. Easy-peasy:[/color]
Except that it's content negotiation, like so many other things with
that "os component," is broken. :-( But perhaps it does better
choosing an image format than it did in my recent document test?
--
Brian (follow directions in my address to email me)
Comment
-
Re: software
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Brian wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > MSIE sends an Accept header saying that it explicitly accepts GIF
> > and JPEG, but not PNG. So turn on content negotiation, and don't
> > send them PNG. Easy-peasy:[/color]
>
> Except that it's content negotiation, like so many other things with
> that "os component," is broken. :-([/color]
Oh dear, how right you are. Sorry for posting rowlocks! I /did/ know
that, but it had slipped my memory.
On one point I'd have to quibble with you - it isn't the browser that
does the actual content negotiation - I'm talking about server-side
negotiation here.
But the bottom line is - you'd be right. Although IE describes its
image capabilities with reasonably honesty when retrieving in response
to <a href="...">, the truth is that when retrieving <img src="..."
....> its Accept header says nothing more than "*/*", which is a
complete lie. (It's probably a waste of bytes too, since presumably
the protocol default has just the same effect as "*/*" ...?)
[color=blue]
> But perhaps it does better
> choosing an image format than it did in my recent document test?[/color]
It would if we were talking about <a href="...">; but in most cases we
wouldn't be. So I'm afraid you're right.
And the same is true of background images. It retrieves those with
nothing more specific than "*/*" too.
Sorry once again.
Comment
Comment