I thought people were adapting to .apng rather than .mng?
But holy fuck, I don't think that's viable until we have faster internet, loading a page full of .gifs already takes a damn long time.
[editline]24th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Seiteki;30686080]The folks behind PNG pretty much consider APNG a bastard child and don't quite support it. They say to use MNG, the non-redheaded child.[/QUOTE]
What's wrong with .apng, anyway?
[QUOTE=myalt22;30687637]I thought people were adapting to .apng rather than .mng?
But holy fuck, I don't think that's viable until we have faster internet, loading a page full of .gifs already takes a damn long time.
[editline]24th June 2011[/editline]
What's wrong with .apng, anyway?[/QUOTE].mng is official, .apng is not. The only browsers that support .apng are Firefox and Opera.
And from what I've seen, Chrome isn't going to add apng support any time soon
I have never seen a single .mng...
And it's official?
I take back what I said earlier. I did some reading and it's clear to me now why animated PNGs have so little support.
[QUOTE=myalt22;30690202]I have never seen a single .mng...[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.libpng.org/pub/mng/]MNGs[/url] are so scarce because there is no demand. Everybody is complacent with GIFs (which I don't agree with).
Richard Simmons should be unperma'd, he's harmless, like the drunk guy at the party who says stupid shit that we all laugh at and feel bad for doing so.
[QUOTE=myalt22;30687637]
What's wrong with .apng, anyway?[/QUOTE]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/M2pLj.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Marlamin;30686140]Nope, checked.[/QUOTE]
Clear your Facepunch.com cookies.
[QUOTE=FreakySoup;30690303]Richard Simmons should be unperma'd, he's harmless, like the drunk guy at the party who says stupid shit that we all laugh at and feel bad for doing so.[/QUOTE]
No he's a horrible poster that should be taken out back and shot.
Metaphorically, of course.
[QUOTE=compwhizii;30690416]No he's a horrible poster that should be taken out back and shot.
Metaphorically, of course.[/QUOTE]
Wasn't hurting anyone. If you don't like him, add him to your ignore list. I thought he was damn awesome.
It works fine
[editline]24th June 2011[/editline]
Disable NoScript or whatever the fuck you firefox users use
[url]http://screencast.com/t/hxocnJKQBUtF[/url]
[QUOTE=windwakr;30693813]Nope, wont close. I've disabled absolutely everything and forced a full reload not from cache. Can't close it.
Was working fine yesterday.[/QUOTE]
Try google chrome.
Why does Facepunch log me out every time I close my browser? I've set my browser to remember all cookies, so it can't be that.
[QUOTE=TehWhale;30688220].mng is official, .apng is not.[/QUOTE]
Such labels are useless for open source projects. Anyone can take the source code, add some features. The fork (new project) will not be a "bastard child", that's not how it works. In the open source world, both projects will compete for popularity as equals.
[editline]25th June 2011[/editline]
Think about it. Firefox started with Netscape source code. Chrome took Apple's code for WebKit (which Apple previously took from somebody else).
And yet nobody whines how "unofficial" they are. Somehow all browsers compete as equals.
[QUOTE=maxst;30695210]Such labels are useless for open source projects. Anyone can take the source code, add some features. The fork (new project) will not be a "bastard child", that's not how it works. In the open source world, both projects will compete for popularity as equals.[/QUOTE]
I'm having a difficult time seeing how APNG will be the "victor" in this struggle. It seems the only people interested in pushing the format are a small selection of forum users that desire animated avatars that fit a file size restriction.
The vast majority of websites have several good ways to add animated content (Flash, HTML5, Java, Silverlight) that are already supported by all of the major browsers. So I must ask, is APNG any better than those formats?
An official format will likely be included in the major browsers regardless of its popularity, but an unofficial one will probably not be included unless it is in high demand. Remember: every format they support now must be supported indefinitely. That's a big commitment to make for something that may not last that long.
[QUOTE=maxst;30695210]Such labels are useless for open source projects. Anyone can take the source code, add some features. The fork (new project) will not be a "bastard child", that's not how it works. In the open source world, both projects will compete for popularity as equals.
[editline]25th June 2011[/editline]
Think about it. Firefox started with Netscape source code. Chrome took Apple's code for WebKit (which Apple previously took from somebody else).
And yet nobody whines how "unofficial" they are. Somehow all browsers compete as equals.[/QUOTE]
What are you going on about?
[QUOTE=ChristopherB;30696075]I'm having a difficult time seeing how APNG will be the "victor" in this struggle.[/QUOTE]
Well, I don't see how 256-color GIF will be "victor", and I don't see how a dead project (MNG) will be "victor".
[QUOTE=ChristopherB;30696075]It seems the only people interested in pushing the format are a small selection of forum users that desire animated avatars that fit a file size restriction.[/QUOTE]
Maybe so, but forums are a very big part of the internet.
[QUOTE=ChristopherB;30696075]The vast majority of websites have several good ways to add animated content (Flash, HTML5, Java, Silverlight) that are already supported by all of the major browsers. So I must ask, is APNG any better than those formats?[/QUOTE]
Because using img tag is extremely easy.
It's also very easy to save GIF or APNG file locally on your computer and repost it later.
[QUOTE=ChristopherB;30696075]An official format will likely be included in the major browsers regardless of its popularity, but an unofficial one will probably not be included[/QUOTE]
That's a nice theory, but in practice APNG enjoys more browser support than MNG.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("You've gone on long enough about MIME types." - Seiteki))[/highlight]
Why are people still arguing over this. Blues want this because they want animated avatars, everyone else doesn't want them because it's a 'privilege', and it somehow turned into a browser war or something
[editline]asd[/editline]
[quote][highlight](User was banned for this post ("You've gone on long enough about MIME types." - Seiteki))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
:love:
[editline]asd[/editline]
Also, is the whole highlight-tags-in-advanced-editor thing going to be fixed?
Will the upgrades page be back ?
yes
Will there actually be stuff on the upgrades page or will it be blank?
Gotta be specific.
-snip-
I think way too much into this.
[QUOTE=Daedulas;30697997]I think he mean't; Why bring it back if it will only have the same stuff.[/QUOTE]
I was trying to make a joke that I assumed wouldn't be too complicated for the Facepunch community.
I need to stop assuming this kind of stuff.
[QUOTE=Ardosos;30695030]Why does Facepunch log me out every time I close my browser? I've set my browser to remember all cookies, so it can't be that.[/QUOTE]
Clear all your cookies, you probably have an old auto-login cookie stuck in there
What do the new updates entail?
[QUOTE=compwhizii;30699310]Clear all your cookies, you probably have an old auto-login cookie stuck in there[/QUOTE]
That seems to have done it, thanks. :buddy:
[QUOTE=Morphology53;30690406][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/M2pLj.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Nice.
(If you're on Firefox, download it, Windows Photo Viewer doesn't support APNG)
also why is there here when i go on the main page, but not into my bookmarked links?
[img]http://gyazo.com/b626bff4513bf4ef7e1f1c2a18570aad.png[/img]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.