On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:20:42 +1000, Chris Fordham chris@xhost.com.au
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 23:29:00 +1000, till klimpong@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Chris!
On 8/19/07, Chris Fordham chris@xhost.com.au wrote:
I've never had to 'think about every single file'? What is this
thinking ? And yeah, this does not introduce bugs...(Please don't TOFU (0), it makes it all harder to read and follow!) What Michael is getting at is that when you stick to one technology it's easier to handle it. So what I have been saying numerous times now is, that PNG is broken in IE6 AND IE7 (the #1 browser, even though we don't like it). I just had a case on another project where a hidden layer made PNGs on a page disappear - oh yeah, and it worked with right away GIF.
till, i know about the support, and its not completely broken like you
claim, thus my original argument of using what is optimally the best
image type based on number of colours in the palette, if transparency
was required and the effective image size. There is no need to repeat
yourself. I read it the first time. Perhaps you didn't read my email
which stated that pngs that are not transparent work fine in IE. I am a
client-side developer and create sites for a living. im well aware of
the limitations of these.
I think i might take this back. I just read up on the outstanding issues
for IE7/PNG. I rarely run into the colour problems, but you are right,
perhaps this is enough to scrap the use of PNG if a workaround is not
going to be used for IE. Dont' worry about replying to my last mail Till,
im wrong...
Also if you have a think about it, because javascript is a dependency of
roundcube, perhaps the idea of a javascript function to fix transparent
support in IE isnt that bad...So for myself the decision is rather easy when it comes to PNG vs GIF. Whatever introduces more problems than it fixes is not worth to be used. Not too many people have time fix browser-specific bugs, so why not move away from this completely?
If you apply this concept, then we should scrap the use JavaScript.
Microsoft made JScript, Netscape made JavaScript then there is
ECMAScript 262, the standard. IE doesn't comply and introduces lots of
problems. Sounds crazy hey! Like i said before, the use of different file extensions does not
introduce bugs... What is the worst that can happen, a image doesn't
load, because of wrong extension, extension changed, done. This seems
quite minor to me..Can you please give me an example of one of these so called bugs created
by using a non-transparent PNG.In anyway, everyone is welcome to replace the images in his local
install. :)(...) Its called human error.
PICNIC (1), or human error is probably the #1 error in programming? :)
Cheers, Till
0, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOFU 1, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PICNIC
