3 ms·
As far as I remember, the main difference in point of view was that the PNG guys (rightly so, IMO) saw animations as something different from a still image, and
by gpvos 12y ago
As far as I remember, the main difference in point of view was that the PNG guys (rightly so, IMO) saw animations as something different from a still image, and wanted to keep that distinction, also in the face of MIME types, file headers, file name extensions, etc., while lots of other (misguided) people wanted animation as a feature in an image format, because they were used to that from GIF.
There may have been some bad blood from MNG, but that was not the main point as far as I understand. Although I must say that the links you provide are interesting reading.
- mmastrac 12y agoHere's the vote where the PNG group rejected APNG: https://web.archive.org/web/20080203042347/http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=3.0.6.32.20070420132821.012dd8e8%40mail.comcast.net https://web.archive.org/web/20080203042347/http://sourceforg... And Vlad's message after the vote: http://osdir.com/ml/graphics.png.general/2007-04/msg00286.html http://osdir.com/ml/graphics.png.general/2007-04/msg00286.ht...
- maxst 12y agoAPNG support in WebKit is implemented as a thin layer on top on regular vanilla libpng. So all that stuff is not very relevant.
- mmastrac 12y agoFrom a technical point of view it's all irrelevant, but I find APNG to be very interesting from a historical point of view. It's both a technical and a political compromise, and all things considered, not a bad standard.