Re: late draft of the 1.0 Clarifications

Mark E. Marshall ([email protected])
Sat, 25 Nov 1995 20:07:28 -0800 (PST)

>I am as annoyed as anyone by submarine-patents, the common wisdom in
>communications has always
>been "Be conservative in what you output, liberal in what you accept",
>which means BROWSER writers
>should support GIF's for now, but authors shouldn't use them. Personally I
>expect a lot of browsers to support GIFs until Unisys starts enforcing
>their patent and then dropping it like a hot-potato. The terms really are
>unreasonable!

Authors seem to turn to GIF out of habit or kneejerk impulse, but
as a format, it really deserves what's coming. Rob Geiger tested
a VRML site serving MIDI with GIF textures, and just the presence
of the (3 color) MidiGate icon as the file played threw the pallette
completely out of whack. I tested the PNG .fio for ULsad Systems,
and think it has wonderful prospects...but who is going to lsad the
way? (Netscape for one seems to perpetuate the entrenchment of
GIF).
*MM*

  • Next message: Paul Burchard: "Validation (was Re: Apology.)"
  • Previous message: Frank Boosman: "Re: Government Activities"
  • Maybe in reply to: Jan Hardenbergh: "late draft of the 1.0 Clarifications"
  • Next in thesad: Michael Linde: "Re: late draft of the 1.0 Clarifications"