Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:58:34 -0500 From: Coleman Kane <cokane@FreeBSD.org> To: Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: APNG patch for graphics/png port Message-ID: <1229612314.3893.14.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <op.ul8oa7m49aq2h7@localhost> References: <1229278954.1718.10.camel@localhost> <op.ul6s9fow9aq2h7@localhost> <1229380736.6657.3.camel@localhost> <op.ul8oa7m49aq2h7@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-4GdU8II3O482iCm/+yrX Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 23:02 -0600, Jeremy Messenger wrote: > On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:38:56 -0600, Coleman Kane <cokane@freebsd.org> > wrote: >=20 > > On Sun, 2008-12-14 at 22:54 -0600, Jeremy Messenger wrote: > >> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:22:34 -0600, Coleman Kane <cokane@freebsd.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Hello, > >> > > >> > I recently played with building Thunderbird 3.0b1 from source (it =20 > >> works > >> > pretty well, btw). I was playing with some of the options to enable > >> > using the system versions of a number of libraries, rather than =20 > >> relying > >> > upon statically linking them into the project. > >> > >> We should keep compile static link, because PNG folks disapprove =20 > >> Mozilla's > >> APNG patch. It's what we did with Firefox 3. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Mezz > >> > > > > Any idea why the mozilla folk jumped on further developing APNG, rather > > than just using (much more mature) MNG for the same purpose? >=20 > I have no idea. The google has found useful links and I think two URLs > might help you. I didn't read there as I have no interest with and don't > care about APNG vs MNG. >=20 > http://mozilla.wikia.com/wiki/APNG_vs_MNG > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APNG#History >=20 > Cheers, > Mezz >=20 Short version: whatwg.org and Mozilla people seemed to think that an "Animated PNG" specification would work best (quickest adoption) if they piggy-backed it on top of the already supported PNG file format. Due to the political implications of such things, the hill was much steeper to climb to get everyone to agree to use MNG than it was to get them to use APNG, even though the latter is basically a reimplementation of the former (actually MNG is a superset of APNG functionality). One key component was that a non-APNG viewer will still view the first image in an APNG, while an MNG file would come up with a "broken image" placeholder. Another key component was that IE would be more likely to adopt it (we remember how long it took them to adopt PNG, right?) if it was based on PNG rather than MNG. The PNG maintainers, coming at it from a pure maintainability standpoint stood their ground and said that they didn't want to absorb the burden of maintaining an "Animated" feature within libpng, they would rather that be handled by the separate libmng. So now we basically have an unofficial fork of libpng that I'd call "mozilla-libpng", which implements the desired features from WHATWG, but makes a very liberal interpretation of the PNG specification. Oh yeah, and it also is based upon a Specification started by an SoC'er, and a patchset which is no longer maintained by him, and instead is maintained by mozilla.org at their discretion (read: whenever they update their png dependency). Again it is unofficial, and Mozilla.org's specification is unfinished as of now. And, from the bug report linked in one of the articles above, it doesn't seem like the two camps are getting along very well. PNG maintainers won't accept APNG, and WHATWG and Mozilla.org won't replace it with MNG. Especially now that APNG is pretty much out of the bag, my opinion is that the libpng people should either adopt APNG into their tree, or yield control over PNG to Mozilla.org. It's not about being the "right" thing to do, it is about avoiding a highly user-confusing feature-based fork of a file format. Okay. So that was actually still kinda long. --=20 Coleman Kane --=-4GdU8II3O482iCm/+yrX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAklKZRYACgkQcMSxQcXat5epgACbBU9nN8VG2WzPhW+ivJk5N8B5 Ou0An1uF4P6D8IttvsBn07VjQ0iWHFVV =5XTA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-4GdU8II3O482iCm/+yrX--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1229612314.3893.14.camel>