GIF89a actually defines something like this https://www.w3.org/Graphics/GIF/spec-gif89a.txt https://www.w3.org/Graphics/GIF/spec-gif89a.txt “The Plain Text Ext

GIF89a actually defines something like this https://www.w3.org/Graphics/GIF/spec-gif89a.txt https://www.w3.org/Graphics/GIF/spec-gif89a.txt “The Plain Text Extension contains textual data and the parameters necessary to render that data as a graphic, in a simple form. The textual data will be encoded with the 7-bit printable ASCII characters. Text data are rendered using a grid of character cells defined by the parameters in the block fields. Each character is rendered in an individual cell. The textual data in this block is to be rendered as mono-spaced characters, one character per cell, with a best fitting font and size.” “The Comment Extension contains textual information which is not part of the actual graphics in the GIF Data Stream. It is suitable for including comments about the graphics, credits, descriptions or any other type of non-control and non-graphic data.” I hesitate to say GIF89a "supported" it since in practice approximately zero percent of software can use either extension. `gIFt` was dropped from the PNG spec for this reason: https://w3c.github.io/PNG-spec/extensions/Overview.html#DC.gIFt https://w3c.github.io/PNG-spec/extensions/Overview.html#DC.g... If it had been well-supported we might have avoided the whole GIF pronunciation war. Load up http://cd.textfiles.com/arcadebbs/GIFS/BOB-89A.GIF http://cd.textfiles.com/arcadebbs/GIFS/BOB-89A.GIF in http://ata4.github.io/gifiddle/ http://ata4.github.io/gifiddle/ and check out the last frame :)