Talk:Spread Open Media/en/FAQ - Revision history

Mms: /* AndreI's question */ re

2007-08-09T15:07:01Z

AndreI's question: re

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:07, 9 August 2007
Line 24:		Line 24:

	:: Please reveal what browser you consider as "most popular". Also, if a browser can't decode PNG correctly, then it is a '''faulty''' browser and you should bug maintainers of this browser, rather than promote bad image formats.		:: Please reveal what browser you consider as "most popular". Also, if a browser can't decode PNG correctly, then it is a '''faulty''' browser and you should bug maintainers of this browser, rather than promote bad image formats.

			:::The Internet Explorer isn't a web browser by the way.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Internet_Explorer/Archive_3#IE_is_not_a_web_browser] --[[User:Mms\|Mms]] 08:07, 9 August 2007 (PDT)

	:: > People on the JPEG2000 standards committee worked very hard trying to insure that free software implementations would be possible		:: > People on the JPEG2000 standards committee worked very hard trying to insure that free software implementations would be possible

Saoshyant at 00:40, 8 August 2007

2007-08-08T00:40:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:40, 8 August 2007
Line 36:		Line 36:

	:: JPEG is far from obsolete. Lossless compression (read: PNG) is usually generating too big files on photographic content. - [[User:Maikmerten\|Maikmerten]] 03:57, 5 August 2007 (PDT)		:: JPEG is far from obsolete. Lossless compression (read: PNG) is usually generating too big files on photographic content. - [[User:Maikmerten\|Maikmerten]] 03:57, 5 August 2007 (PDT)

			JPEG and GIF do not need promotion for heaven's sake. That list is not exhaustive either. JPEG 2000 is very much proprietary and full of patents. Worse, it offers little advantages over common JPEG. Ah, if only PNG could be used for digital photography... Anyhow, not a big list. Just the most common. Does anyone want to compile an entire list of even the real real obscure ones?--[[User:Saoshyant\|Ivo]] 17:40, 7 August 2007 (PDT)

	----		----
Line 55:		Line 57:
	[[User:DOS386\|DOS386]] 07:42, 2 August 2007 (PDT)		[[User:DOS386\|DOS386]] 07:42, 2 August 2007 (PDT)

			:It will be changed.--[[User:Saoshyant\|Ivo]] 17:40, 7 August 2007 (PDT)
	----		----

Maikmerten: /* AndreI's question */

2007-08-05T10:57:05Z

AndreI's question

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:57, 5 August 2007
Line 34:		Line 34:

	: Not sure about how far JPG is proprietary (if there are still active patents, they will expire soon anyway), the main problem might be inappropriate usage of it for screenshots, tables, graphs, etc. And it's a bit obsolete (some geeks try to recompres JPG lostlessly !!!). [[User:DOS386\|DOS386]] 00:09, 4 August 2007 (PDT)		: Not sure about how far JPG is proprietary (if there are still active patents, they will expire soon anyway), the main problem might be inappropriate usage of it for screenshots, tables, graphs, etc. And it's a bit obsolete (some geeks try to recompres JPG lostlessly !!!). [[User:DOS386\|DOS386]] 00:09, 4 August 2007 (PDT)

			:: JPEG is far from obsolete. Lossless compression (read: PNG) is usually generating too big files on photographic content. - [[User:Maikmerten\|Maikmerten]] 03:57, 5 August 2007 (PDT)

	----		----

DOS386: /* AndreI's question [2] */

2007-08-04T07:09:51Z

AndreI's question [2]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 : GIF and JPEG are the only two formats you can rely on a web browser to properly decode, and for this reason are by far the most popular image formats on the web.  (The most popular web browser doesn't properly decode PNG.)  I'd like to know why they aren't considered sufficiently free.  People on the JPEG2000 standards committee worked very hard trying to insure that free software implementations would be possible.  How did they fail? [[User:Andrel|Andrel]]
 IIRC there is some patent trouble with JPEG2000 (don't know specifics) but to my knowledge JPEG (at least the usual baseline we're all using) isn't problematic (even the Forgent patent that caused some trouble in 2002 is expired by now). GIF, which is a tad bit dated, also apparently isn't covered by any patent anymore. [[User:Maikmerten|Maikmerten]] 00:20, 3 August 2007 (PDT)
 ----

Maikmerten: /* AndreI's question */

2007-08-03T07:20:27Z

AndreI's question

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:20, 3 August 2007
Line 16:		Line 16:

	: GIF and JPEG are the only two formats you can rely on a web browser to properly decode, and for this reason are by far the most popular image formats on the web. (The most popular web browser doesn't properly decode PNG.) I'd like to know why they aren't considered sufficiently free. People on the JPEG2000 standards committee worked very hard trying to insure that free software implementations would be possible. How did they fail? [[User:Andrel\|Andrel]]		: GIF and JPEG are the only two formats you can rely on a web browser to properly decode, and for this reason are by far the most popular image formats on the web. (The most popular web browser doesn't properly decode PNG.) I'd like to know why they aren't considered sufficiently free. People on the JPEG2000 standards committee worked very hard trying to insure that free software implementations would be possible. How did they fail? [[User:Andrel\|Andrel]]


			IIRC there is some patent trouble with JPEG2000 (don't know specifics) but to my knowledge JPEG (at least the usual baseline we're all using) isn't problematic (even the Forgent patent that caused some trouble in 2002 is expired by now). GIF, which is a tad bit dated, also apparently isn't covered by any patent anymore. [[User:Maikmerten\|Maikmerten]] 00:20, 3 August 2007 (PDT)

	----		----

Andrel at 16:19, 2 August 2007

2007-08-02T16:19:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:19, 2 August 2007
Line 3:		Line 3:
	== AndreI's question ==		== AndreI's question ==

	'''~~AndreI~~''' wrote:		'''AndreL''' wrote:

	> Why aren't GIF, JPEG, and JPEG2000 on this list?		> Why aren't GIF, JPEG, and JPEG2000 on this list?
Line 14:		Line 14:

	[[User:DOS386\|DOS386]] 07:42, 2 August 2007 (PDT)		[[User:DOS386\|DOS386]] 07:42, 2 August 2007 (PDT)

			: GIF and JPEG are the only two formats you can rely on a web browser to properly decode, and for this reason are by far the most popular image formats on the web. (The most popular web browser doesn't properly decode PNG.) I'd like to know why they aren't considered sufficiently free. People on the JPEG2000 standards committee worked very hard trying to insure that free software implementations would be possible. How did they fail? [[User:Andrel\|Andrel]]

	----		----

DOS386: Answer + new question/request [6]

2007-08-02T14:41:46Z

Answer + new question/request [6]

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:41, 2 August 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	----		----

			== AndreI's question ==

	'''AndreI''' wrote:		'''AndreI''' wrote:
Line 11:		Line 13:
	GIF: used to be affected by LZW84 patent, this is now expired, but still not fully free (?), obsolete, poor compression, 256 colors only. Problem: no usable PNG animation so far :-(		GIF: used to be affected by LZW84 patent, this is now expired, but still not fully free (?), obsolete, poor compression, 256 colors only. Problem: no usable PNG animation so far :-(

	[[User:DOS386\|DOS386]] 07:32, 2 August 2007 (PDT)		[[User:DOS386\|DOS386]] 07:42, 2 August 2007 (PDT)

	----		----

			== Saoshyant's latest addition ==

	'''Saoshyant''' wrote:		'''Saoshyant''' wrote:
Line 27:		Line 31:
	Please rewrite. It's '''_NOT_''' obvious at all who of them (SOM, PlayOgg, Vorbis) is the good and should be promoted and who is the evil and should be avoided ...		Please rewrite. It's '''_NOT_''' obvious at all who of them (SOM, PlayOgg, Vorbis) is the good and should be promoted and who is the evil and should be avoided ...

	[[User:DOS386\|DOS386]] 07:32, 2 August 2007 (PDT)		[[User:DOS386\|DOS386]] 07:42, 2 August 2007 (PDT)

	----		----

DOS386: Answer + new question/request [5]

2007-08-02T14:32:07Z

Answer + new question/request [5]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 '''AndreI''' wrote:
@@ Line 8: / Line 10: @@
 GIF: used to be affected by LZW84 patent, this is now expired, but still not fully free (?), obsolete, poor compression, 256 colors only. Problem: no usable PNG animation so far :-(
 '''Saoshyant''' wrote:
@@ Line 20: / Line 26: @@
 Please rewrite. It's '''_NOT_''' obvious at all who of them (SOM, PlayOgg, Vorbis) is the good and should be promoted and who is the evil and should be avoided ...

DOS386: Answer + new question/request [4]

2007-08-02T14:29:38Z

Answer + new question/request [4]

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:29, 2 August 2007
Line 12:		Line 12:

	> Is SOM related with PlayOgg?		> Is SOM related with PlayOgg?

	> No, and if you actually want to help promote Open Media formats		> No, and if you actually want to help promote Open Media formats

	> like Vorbis avoid them. Threat tactics, desinformation, and ignorancy		> like Vorbis avoid them. Threat tactics, desinformation, and ignorancy

	> do _not_ pass the message we want.		> do _not_ pass the message we want.

	Please rewrite. It's '''_NOT_''' obvious at all who of them (SOM, PlayOgg, Vorbis) is the good and should be promoted and who is the evil and should be avoided ...		Please rewrite. It's '''_NOT_''' obvious at all who of them (SOM, PlayOgg, Vorbis) is the good and should be promoted and who is the evil and should be avoided ...

DOS386: Answer + new question/request [3]

2007-08-02T14:28:26Z

Answer + new question/request [3]

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:28, 2 August 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	AndreI wrote:		'''AndreI''' wrote:

	> Why aren't GIF, JPEG, and JPEG2000 on this list?		> Why aren't GIF, JPEG, and JPEG2000 on this list?
Line 5:		Line 5:
	JPEG2000: '''highly''' proprietary		JPEG2000: '''highly''' proprietary

	JPEG: proprietary (?), lossy with little benefit only, too much inappropriate usage		JPEG: proprietary (?), lossy with little benefit only, too much inappropriate usage (poor quality images)

	GIF: used to be affected by LZW84 patent, this is now expired, but still not fully free (?), obsolete, poor compression, 256 colors only. Problem: no usable PNG animation so far :-(		GIF: used to be affected by LZW84 patent, this is now expired, but still not fully free (?), obsolete, poor compression, 256 colors only. Problem: no usable PNG animation so far :-(

	Saoshyant wrote:		'''Saoshyant''' wrote:

	> Is SOM related with PlayOgg?		> Is SOM related with PlayOgg?