On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 04:50:04AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Thought: If a website uses images, does it necessarily have to care that
>text-based browsers won't see them? No.
Yes!
>You write that IMG tag without a second thought
>for the poor text-based browsers.
Yes! And that thought is called an ALT= attribute. In the `new' HTML 4.0(1)
DTDs, ALT= tags are in fact _mandatory_ on every IMG tag. Remember that the
blind are to use the web, too... Similarily, people may choose to turn off
images if they're on low bandwidth, or just want a cleaner page.
>Same way here. If a website uses PNG
>images or Macromedia Flash or Javascript,
I think comparing PNG with Flash is... well, not good ;-)
>So write that IMG SRC="abc.png" tag with impunity.
Go on, say <IMG SRC="abc.png" ALT="GIMPS - We love you"> and I'll be content :-)
My point is, make the page look _good_ for the top 95%, and make it _usable_ for
the low 5%.
><ZEALOT> I'm now disgusted with GIF images, if only because I'm tired of
>living in an 8-bit color, 1-bit transparency world. I wouldn't stand for a
>computer that ran with 256 colors, and I don't have to stand for an image
>format that tops out at 256-colors and 1-bit transparency either. And has
>terrifically bad compression either.</ZEALOT>
But, on the other hand, is amazingly much simpler (you can quite easily write a
GIF reader in a couple hundred lines of C -- just counting the .c files in
libpng and zlib gives over 25000 lines of code) :-) But we've got computers that
are powerful enough now, I think :-)
>Doesn't matter. PNG *is* better, and PNG ought to be used on the GIMPS site
>regardless of whether any other site does.
Yes! :-)
BTW, has anybody pushed the site through http://validator.w3.org/ lately?
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://members.xoom.com/sneeze/
_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt
