Talk:OggMNG: Difference between revisions

From XiphWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
m (Put back attribution)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
On May 10, 2009, VinIPSmaker wrote:
On January 29, 2008, under ''Implementation Notes'', [[UserXpete:Xpete]] wrote:  
:MNG compression is better than APNG compression. MNG can be lossless (using PNG) and lossy (JNG - JPEG with alpha channel).
:We don't need the backward-compatibility. I prefer the use of MNG instead APNG in ogg and other media containers.
:APNG could be a transitional image format for browsers even them support MNG.
 
On January 29, 2008, under ''Implementation Notes'', wrote:  
:Because of OggSpots, an extra presentational format for presentation slide-like stuff isn't needed
:Because of OggSpots, an extra presentational format for presentation slide-like stuff isn't needed
:In a presentation, you can also just pause the presentation, video for showing things.
:In a presentation, you can also just pause the presentation, video for showing things.

Latest revision as of 05:04, 24 August 2009

On January 29, 2008, under Implementation Notes, UserXpete:Xpete wrote:

Because of OggSpots, an extra presentational format for presentation slide-like stuff isn't needed
In a presentation, you can also just pause the presentation, video for showing things.

On August 9, 2005, under Further Speculation, Sayoshant wrote:

Some people, including staff members of Mozilla, believe MNG should be replaced by APNG, a superset extension of PNG with multi-image support, but that should still be backwards-compatibility.
I, non-Xiph member, wonder on other hand if OggMNG should become OggAPNG or actually keep the project as MNG.
Keep it as mng because apng and mng are NOT THE SAME things:
mng >>>http://www.libpng.org/pub/mng/
apng >>>http://animatedpng.com/
Retrieved from "https://wiki.xiph.org/index.php?title=Talk:OggMNG&oldid=10517"