All the community hope in the affirmation of the W3C standard PNG in the
web,
but GIF is so common and it hasn't transparency problems like PNG
when it's view in MSIE.
Moreover you're sure that the image is viewable on a large set of browsers,
like old mozilla/3.x compatibles, and on many WAP dev
Sometimes you need GIF and only GIF because of the browser contraints.
with best wishes
Alexander Kachanov
On Sunday, 17 March, 2002, 15:12:57, Matteo wrote:
MDG> Hello all!
MDG> I've found a GIFOutputStream (that can turned into a GIFTranscoder) that
MDG> does *not* implement the LZW compres
On Sunday, 17 March, 2002, 15:12:57, Matteo wrote:
MDG> Hello all!
MDG> I've found a GIFOutputStream (that can turned into a GIFTranscoder) that
MDG> does *not* implement the LZW compression.
Sure, anyone can implement GIF *encoding* as long as they are content
to produce huge, uncompressed ima
Matteo Di Giovinazzo wrote:
>Hello all!
>
>I've found a GIFOutputStream (that can turned into a GIFTranscoder) that
>does *not* implement the LZW compression.
>
>www.shetline.com
>
This sounds very interesting; you should directly get in touch with the
batik-dev's, as Transcoders are their domai
hile the output
| of the compression routine is compatible with LZW, only a simple run-
| length compression is performed. The degree of compression as compared
| to LZW is not as high, but execution time is faster, and LZW licensing
| issues are avoided. Depending on image size and image complex
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> > This is not a showstopper and may not even be an issue for us.
> > However, i noticed that many of the licences have strange
> > dates. Most of them say "1999" and only a couple of them say
> > "2002".
>
> We just include the licenses that they
David Crossley wrote:
>
> Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> > Cocooners,
> >
> > We have to resolve licensing issues quickly. I committed as
> > many licenses as I could find,
>
> A big thanks to Vadim for all your work with getting the
> various licences sorted o
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> Cocooners,
>
> We have to resolve licensing issues quickly. I committed as
> many licenses as I could find,
A big thanks to Vadim for all your work with getting the
various licences sorted out.
This is not a showstopper and may not even be an issue for us
Vadim Gritsenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 01/30/2002 10:31:33 AM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: RE: Licensing Issues
> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> >
> >> > xml-apis.jar
> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> >
> >> > xml-apis.jar
> >>
> >> Good news. License is Apache Software Foundation.
> >
> > Do you know where it came from? Say, what CVS module?
>
> xml-commons.
Sam,
Unfortunately, this module does not have license in it
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>
>> > xml-apis.jar
>>
>> Good news. License is Apache Software Foundation.
>
> Do you know where it came from? Say, what CVS module?
xml-commons.
- Sam Ruby
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> > xml-apis.jar
>
> Good news. License is Apache Software Foundation.
Do you know where it came from? Say, what CVS module?
> > jstyle.jar
>
> Seems to have disappeared. You might want to check with some of the
people
> mentioned on the follow
> xml-apis.jar
Good news. License is Apache Software Foundation.
> jstyle.jar
Seems to have disappeared. You might want to check with some of the people
mentioned on the following page:
http://debian.acm.ndsu.nodak.edu/doc/astyle/astyle.html
- Sam Ruby
Cocooners,
We have to resolve licensing issues quickly. I committed as many
licenses as I could find, and there are just two jars (did I miss some?)
left without license.
These are:
xml-apis.jar
jstyle.jar
Also, it was written on source forge that rdffilter is in public domain
14 matches
Mail list logo
