New Animated PNG Creation Tools Intend To Bring APNG Into Mainstream Use 246
Kagetsuki writes "While grainy GIF images can have entertaining uses, they aren't the ideal animated image format due to lack of full color support and an alpha channel [for varied transparency]. Animated PNG doesn't have these faults and has been available and incorporated in quite a few browsers since roughly 2004. Lack of tools and recognition has hurt adoption, so to remedy this there is a campaign on Kickstarter to create an Open Source, high quality Animated PNG [APNG] conversion library and GUI Editor based on the APNG Assembler tool 'apngasm.' Even the primary goal includes libraries/modules for C/C++ and Ruby along with a cross platform GUI authoring tool. Aside from supporting the project simply using APNG willl help raise interest and support in the standard and bring us one step closer to a world with cleaner animated images."
quite a few browsers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Animated PNG support is terrible... see:
http://caniuse.com/apng [caniuse.com]
No IE, no Chrome, Opera dropped it when they went to Webkit, no iPhone, no Android...
looks like it's pretty much only available on 20%ish of desktop browsers and pretty much nothing mobile. You aren't going to get anyone to use it in a public-facing web application yet. Remember the days of "this site looks best in (Internet Explorer/Netscape/whatever)"... let's not do that again.
Maybe if the HTML 5 standard said that conforming user agents have to do this it would put a little more umph behind it. Of course, the standard seems to follow browser development in many cases now, not the other way around.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This, this, a million times this. Basically the only widely-used browser that supports APNG is Firefox. Until IE and Webkit follow suit, APNG is a total non-starter.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, no wonders Firefox support it - accordingly to Wikipedia, APNG was created by two guys at Mozilla.
For other browsers... well, this kind of thing usually steamrolls (more use > more users > more browser support > more use), so the beginning is slow, but the animation tools in the article may help to boost it a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is PNG needed any more, anyway? It was only developed because of Unisys patents. GIF patents expired years ago.
Re:quite a few browsers? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see another lossless image format with alpha channel support and 8/24bit colour depth around, do you?
Re:quite a few browsers? (Score:5, Informative)
BMP, TIF, TGA, EXR, WEBP, various 'raw' formats.
Each of which are either stupidly larger than PNG, require decoders with much larger memory footprints to account for all the features of the format that are entirely useless in a web browser (this is supposed to be a format for the web, not a goddamned CMYK printing press), or are blindly hated due to being supported by one or more Evil-Companies-Of-The-Month(tm). Nice try, though.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I forgot to add "supported in all browsers capable of displaying images". I know there are more image formats out there.
However, this is about the image support in browsers. Thus your list makes no sense. Then again, this is slashdot where one has to list any and all qualifiers, just so you don't get jumped on because you didn't cover the use case the article wasn't about.
Re: (Score:2)
BMP, TIF, TGA, EXR, WEBP, various 'raw' formats.
With that line there you clearly demonstrated you don't know what you're talking about.
Despite the fact that none of them support animations; they are either completely over the top or utterly basic. Let me see, BMP - if you ever used this "standard" you would know it's pretty awful and not standard. TGA would be fine if this was 1986, we might as well switch to PPM. EXR would be great if we wanted animations to be some kind of WebGL substitute and WEBP, well we might as well switch to JPEG-2000.
By the way,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because PNG beats the pants off of GIF in terms of file size.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even a few percent would save Google terabytes a day. That's why improvements to compression and protocols that seem quite insignificant to the end user are very popular at the host.
Re:quite a few browsers? (Score:4, Insightful)
On the client side, what if they're on cell modems, in rural areas, sometimes on the 2G networks getting 110 kbps (that's bits, chief). Or satellite internet. Or anything that measures bandwidth used. I know my parents saved 5-25% bandwidth on all the images that were downloaded, it would make their satellite internet a hell of a lot more usable. Even on 3g, or in congested areas, it could make a difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is PNG needed any more, anyway? It was only developed because of Unisys patents. GIF patents expired years ago.
uhh.. yeah I suppose you could hack in multi-bit transparency and higher color modes and better compression into gif now but .. eh, it wouldn't be gif then.
also, who cares about the authoring tool? that's hardly the problem, the problem is that if it doesn't work on every browser you might just as well embed a fucking video(of people fucking).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:quite a few browsers? (Score:5, Informative)
Couple of reasons
1. Better compression.
2. 24-bit support (still with pretty good compression).
3. 8-bit alpha channel with 24-bit RGB.
Re:quite a few browsers? (Score:4, Informative)
Because not all images are square. Objects that aren't square (like a star for example), if you wanted to place that star on a page, and didn't have alpha transparency, you could use GIF, but the edges would look weird because it's either all on or all off transparency which creates jaggy edges. With alpha transparency you can make the object's edges more transparent as it gets closer to the edge which will let it look right no matter what type of background you have. Of course there are many other uses, like semi-transparent effects, shadows, etc that aren't easily replicated another way.
These type things allow a webpage to reuse assets over and over across many pages, or in many different sections of the same page, which reduces the amount of image manipulation you have to do, and also reduces the size of the page which is more and more important as devices with low bandwidth become more prominent (like phones/tablets).
Re:quite a few browsers? (Score:5, Informative)
Why is PNG needed any more, anyway? It was only developed because of Unisys patents. GIF patents expired years ago.
The LZW patents were the impetus for PNG, but PNG is superior in every possible way... except that PNG skipped animation, because animated GIFs didn't seem like an important use case to support. (As I recall, their primary use at the time was badly pixelated spinning red alarm lights on Geocities pages.)
Re:quite a few browsers? (Score:4, Insightful)
My first thought exactly.
We don't need APNG creator tools, we need browser support first.
Re:quite a few browsers? (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't need chickens we need eggs!!
Re: (Score:3)
Let me restate;
With a number of APNG editor/creator tools readily available (http://littlesvr.ca/apng/), adding one more APNG generator isn't going to magically let people actually view these APNG files.
Re: (Score:2)
Did I imagine this, or did something change, or do they only support a subset of animated PNG or something?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm amazed Firefox has support. I was 100% certain that there was an argument/discussion on Bugzilla about this, and Mozilla's opinion on this was that having animated PNG support would just increase the size of the browser whilst there were virtually no websites using it. Did I imagine this, or did something change, or do they only support a subset of animated PNG or something?
Sorry for replying to my own post... I was getting confused with MNG. I guess APNG must be easier to implement?
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently it is less than 1KB of extra decoder size.
Re:quite a few browsers? (Score:5, Informative)
What about MNG?
If APNG is a screwdriver MNG is a Swiss Army Knife with all sorts of little tools, one of which being a screwdriver head that is sort of awkward and difficult to use. MNG has a lot of compelling features that sound great but the reality is all these features made MNG difficult to implement. MNG isn't a simple [screwdriver] "frame based" format. Instead it has a bunch of small embedded tools [Swiss Army Knife] to create animations. For example it contains individual image objects/sprites and these are manipulated through some sort of animation instruction system that is embedded in the image - and variations of sprites are stored as delta fragments, and there's additional support for these fragments to be in transparent JPG which is a questionable standard on its own and seems self defeating in a PNG based standard...? If you want just a frame based animated image APNG does the job and is simpler, if you want a complex format that has individual image fragments and scripted action then SVG+SMIL is your solution; MNG is too complex to outdo APNG and too inflexible to outdo SVG+SMIL.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a patch for Chrome/Chromium they've promised to accept if they see more widespread usage. Also may I point out that APNG gracefully degrades to PNG - so APNG will not actually break anything you'll just get the first frame on a browser that does not support APNG. In other words no "this site looks best in" required - just be aware that some browsers will only show the first frame.
It would be great to have a widely accepted standard from the get-go but that is something we do not have. APNG is the cl
'permanent' b/c of ppl like you (Score:2)
As an AC said above, "You are Wrong!"
There is *absolutely* no technical reason that internetworked computers *must* use different mechanisms at the presentation layer. Absolutely no logical reason to have the standards be different for any reason.
In practice, due to economics or usability concerns, browser makers make their browsers to operate in ways to accomplish non-computing goals....branding.
Just beca
Re: (Score:3)
What, are you typing from 1996?
Netflix, smartphones, and hell even just a cursory reading of what the NSA can do to spy on us proves you wrong....
About the last part at least!
I agree that X, Y, and Z web coding laguages suck! Also flash sucks!
I'm trained as a network engineer. To me it's all stupid bullshit....like tags they put on clothes at the store to make you but the
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. PNG is supported by the vast majority of older browsers. It has basic support going all the way back to IE version 5.5, and has support for alpha transparency (without filters) since IE 7. IE 9 fixed a few remaining issues with alpha transparency and opacity on the same image. We don't even get any IE 7 users on our sites anymore (0.03% or something), and 4% are using IE 8. We don't officially support anything less than IE 9.
You may not want to use the advanced features of PNG (transparency or fu
Re: (Score:2)
More like IE7 and earlier. 4-6 kinda-sorta did it, except for the killer feature which basically drove most people's decisions to use it in the first place: namely, alpha transparency.
Re: (Score:2)
on the other hand we do have web video support
H.264 or VP8? And with alpha transparency?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Look at the source of your demo. Each frame from the video (mp4 [jakearchibald.com], ogv [jakearchibald.com]) has colour on the top half and a mask on the bottom half. Then JavaScript is use to render them into a html canvas. This is neat, but far from the simplicity of embedding a PNG or APNG image. This is also very inefficient, a site that would use this hack to display animated icons would be horribly slow, especially on mobile platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks properly trippy in Opera and Firefox. Oooh, the colors, man. Reminds me of the first acid trip, guy sticks his hand in front of your face and does the finger fan thing, watch the trails, like, wow, man, trippin', ya know? At least, that's my memory from '67, what's left of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually APNG is explicitly mentioned as a supported format for the image tag in the HTML5 spec.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#the-img-element [w3.org]
Search for "APNG".
The problem is size limits (Score:5, Insightful)
Most sites that use animated GIFs have restrictions on size and dimensions (typically 500x500 1MB). The quality of APNG within those restrictions won't be any better.
Re: (Score:2)
If only the network got faster and people was willing to accept bigger file sizes and RAM usage!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The costs of good storage are still prohibitive.
Re: (Score:2)
My Quake site that I ran fifteen to ten years ago used LOTS of animated gifs, as well as a little javascript. There were three at the top of each page, two animated stroggs surrounding a drawing of the Illinois state capitol with blood in the street that was overlaid with the dog tag from the game that said "loading", with the tag going away after 30 seconds or so. If you moused over the strogg on the right, sonic the hedgehog would run past and the strogg would try to stomp him. If the cursor stayed over t
Not everybody lives where fast Internet is offered (Score:2)
If only the network got faster
Yeah, if only. The POTS network is still stuck at 50 kbps effective throughput, and a lot of local telcos appear not to be too eager to upgrade the remaining customers stuck on dial-up to DSL. Microwave is limited by investors wanting to see short-term earnings over long-term investment in cell tower construction or satellite launches.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Most sites that use animated GIFs have restrictions on size and dimensions (typically 500x500 1MB). The quality of APNG within those restrictions won't be any better.
PNG uses substantially better compression technology than GIF (a two pass algorithm with a pixel value predictor in the first and then compressing the errors after the first pass in the second using deflate, which combines LZ77 dictionary encoding and an adaptive huffman coder, versus straightforward LZW, which is only a dictionary coder), so this is not really true. You can achieve a lot more in a 1MB PNG than a 1MB GIF.
plus gamma, so it lookd right on other systems (Score:3)
MNG? (Score:2, Interesting)
What happened to the MNG version of PNG?
Re: (Score:2)
MNG was horribly over engineered, bloated with features and never really supported by anybody, neither tools nor browsers.
what happened to MNG? (Score:5, Interesting)
From this 2004 story: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/04/08/28/2312256/presenting-apng-like-mng-only-better [slashdot.org]
"Unlike MNG, APNG is not a separate file format, but rather an extension to PNG. Thus, APNG images are just normal PNG images (with the .png extension) but can be animated. The system is fully backwards-compatable, so any program that can open a PNG image will be able to open an APNG image (though non-APNG viewers will only show the first frame). Vitally, the decoder just adds an extra few kilobytes onto a standard PNG decoder. APNG support is in the process of being checked into Mozilla. Hopefully, other programs will follow suit."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How can that be?
For whatever reason, MNG became a cultural thing around Mozilla, Inc. - that thing that everybody loved to hate for no good reason at all. Excuses were made and the RFE closed, despite the massive number of votes for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: what happened to MNG? (Score:2, Informative)
Developer ego together with a healthy dose of "not invented here" syndrome is what happened. MNG was removed from Firefox by Stuart Parmenter "to save download size" (without libmng, the Firefox download would save 200 KB back in the days when Firefox was considered the "lean version" of Mozilla). He then proceeded to instead propose APNG with vlad to effectively replace the GIF standard for animation without relying on MNG by applying custom patches to libpng.
Needless to say, when Mozilla brought the APNG
reddit (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
What happened to MNG? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Backwards compatability. Browsers without APNG support will see it as a normal PNG image and load the first frame, similar to viewing an animated GIF in a browser with animations disabled (loads first frame only).
Re: (Score:3)
MNG is not the correct solution, it's a solution looking for a problem. It's feature bloated and designed without any kind of thought put into how tools for it would work. It has support for sprites, tiling, fading, magnification, loops and a bunch of other stuff, none of which maps very well into the tools people actually use to produce animations. It's not so much an animated image format, but a language to write animations in.
The proper solution is video, WebM or whatever. Which makes no assumptions abou
Kickstarter: frenemy of free software (Score:3, Insightful)
Kickstarter: friend of free software (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember when people wrote free software because it scratched an itch.
There are talented individuals producing small free software, or joining organisation to produce larger software, and companies with real money able to contribute/create to free software. Is there no room in that for funding a group *itch*(sic), or helping an (group of) individuals scratch theirs who otherwise wouldn't be able to due to life commitments...software takes time and effort to create.
The bottom line is people produce free software for a whole host of reasons. I personally see money being a great reason, as do all those companies already contributing to free software. In reality its the most common one.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. If it's free-as-in-speech software, then - barring fraud - either...
A. People will pledge for it, it gets made, and released in free-as-in-speech form.
B. People won't pledge for it, it doesn't get made, and thus any argument over its being free or not is moot.
Kickstarter does see its share of software projects where sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't have been written on the authors' own time in spare time anyway and released on sourceforge only to be discovered months later by the masses. But
Children under 18 (Score:2)
Of course that $1.99 is just a burger
That's not a valid comparison if your market includes children under legal working age, which is the case for (say) any video game not rated M or AO. A $1.99 burger doesn't cost $1.99 to a child; it costs one week of waiting for the parent's next scheduled trip to a fast food chain. A lot of parents are, for some irrational reason, far more willing to spend $1.99 on a burger than $1.99 on an application when it isn't the child's birthday or Christmas.
The downside of the donation button model is that few people actually use it.
Hence "lite" and "pro" versions of applications on Google
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when people wrote free software because it scratched an itch. Kickstarter seems to be setting a trend where people won't write free software unless they get paid.
There is nothing unusual in a developer being paid for his work or subsidized in some other fashion when he contributes to an open source project. It allows him to work full time on the thing. It gives him access to manpower and other resources he could not afford on his own.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when people wrote free software because it scratched an itch. Kickstarter seems to be setting a trend where people won't write free software unless they get paid. (Or they will write it and refuse to release it unless they get paid). That's not FREE software, it's hostage software.
I have always wanted that OSS devs get paid properly. Programming even small apps from start to finish is surprisingly hard and time-consuming. I hate when there is some free software app hanging at version 0.6 for years because there is not enough resources to keep the project running.
Re: (Score:2)
If I could get paid full time, I'd quit my current job in a heartbeat and work on personal projects. "Fuck you, pay me" isn't about greed -- it's about supporting yourself.
Starting a business is very, very difficult and time consuming if you only want to work on a few things. I'm not sure if I'd use it, but Kickstarter is a terrific idea.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when people wrote free software because it scratched an itch. Kickstarter seems to be setting a trend where people won't write free software unless they get paid. (Or they will write it and refuse to release it unless they get paid). That's not FREE software, it's hostage software.
No, it's not hostage software. Software developers need to eat. Writing free software and kindly asking for donations very rarely generates enough to put food on the table. Using Kickstarter is actually a good idea. If there is enough demand, then people will contribute to it. And afterwards, the project gets released for free to the community.
Software developers get paid. Community gets free software.
Trip to Japan (Score:2)
Please note their $5,000 prize is a two-months' stay in Japan: Land of soy sauce... and Mothra.
Re: (Score:2)
From the Kickstarter page:
I saw this, too, and was thinking that it might almost be worth it for the experience
Remember when (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember when creating high quality open source software didn't require a Kickstarter campaign?
Re: (Score:2)
High quality open source software? Like what?
Re: (Score:2)
High quality open source software? Like what?
Linux, Apache, GNOME, KDE, Mozilla...
Open source is usually (not always) higher quality than closed source. Windows has trailed in features and useability behind Linux for years, for example.
Libraries vs. end user experiences (Score:2)
Linux, Apache, GNOME, KDE, Mozilla
All of these examples you give are libraries on which another product builds [slashdot.org], namely Linux applications, the server side of web applications, GNOME applications, KDE applications, and the client side of web applications. Let me know when there's high-quality open-source entertainment software. In fact, a few Slashdot users, such as turbidostato [slashdot.org], alexo [slashdot.org], and Anonymous Coward [slashdot.org], are under the impression that if video games can't be made free, video games shouldn't be made at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that you people bitch every time someone gets paid?
You fuckers destroyed the software industry. And now every time someone tries to get something going again you fucks show up and start crying like little bitches because someone is earning money for their hard fucking work.
If you don't want to invest in the project, then DON'T. You can download the source for free after the rest of us pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when creating high quality open source software didn't require a Kickstarter campaign?
I remember when software developers subsisted on nothing but air and close proximity to an electric line, and required only their imagination to create software and distribute it via their magical mind rainbows to all the computers in the world.
Sometimes people actually want to get paid for what they do. And usually, if someone can get paid while doing something they like then that's all the better.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when creating high quality open source software didn't require a Kickstarter campaign?
Uh, yeah. I remember that time. It was yesterday. Or did Linus start a "Linux Kickstarter" when I wasn't looking? The fact that some people who launch projects via Kickstarter choose to license their project under an Open Source licence doesn't mean that every open source project is.
Prophet of doom, much?
Kill all animated GIFs! (Score:2)
Including improved ones..."
Re: (Score:3)
And autoplay video. And scrolling/looping banners and sidebars. And blinky/noisy ads. And floating boxes. And pop-over subscription requests. Yes. Kill them all. I keep throwing matches at the screen, but they won't burn.
Re: (Score:2)
These looping animations are great. They're small in filesize - great for mobile browsing. They have no sound! No sound! Are often cut to a small number of frames, ending the "yeah, click here and fast forward to 32m 05s, to view 2 seconds of funny" links. No one adds "?t=32m05s" to a query string, before any one brings that up. Are rarely deleted due to DCMA.
What's not to like about them?
Why not WebP? Or straight video? (Score:2)
I'm curious - why not go with WebP instead? I haven't looked too closely at the format, licensing, burden on CPU/memory, etc.
I do however know from my own tests that it generally performs better than PNG and already has animation support (though the Chromium team has rejected supporting it last month due to performance issues - but they also don't support APNG out of the box, you have to get a plugin).
Or skip the 'animated image' stage altogether and go straight to video (though there's more concerns there
Re: (Score:2)
What about WebP?
Comparing WebP to APNG is like comparing Apples and Oranges. WebP is an up-and-coming web oriented image format from google. Part of the WebP standard mentions animation. WebP however does not currently have anything more than a sample implementation, and WebP will probably never be backported to older devices and software and may never be ported to a lot of software that already supports PNG. This means that if you start using WebP now you can expect a lot of people to not be able to view your images at all - whereas with APNG they will at worst simply see the first or fallback frame.
WebP solves different issues and has a variety of features, such as lossy compression profiles and filters that simply don't apply to PNG and will not be part of the simple APNG standard [though it could be noted these features and more were in MNG]. APNG and WebP are simply different, and though they solve some of the same problems they are not really competing formats. Ideally we'd like to see wide spread adoption of both formats on just about everything in the future - but we can have and use APNG right now.
GIF /does/ support true colors (Score:4, Interesting)
It's worth noting that GIFs may overlay multiple image blocks with separate color pallets, resulting in true color images [tweakers.net].
The problem here is that some browsers (chrome) insert an artificial 0.1s delay between "frames".
Also if you can do this [amusingplanet.com] with GIF one has to wonder if APNG has actually any viability other than as a source format.
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth noting that GIFs may overlay multiple image blocks with separate color pallets, resulting in true color images [tweakers.net].
True, but it's kind of a hack.
Examples: (Score:2)
http://gimpchat.com/files/2_APNG-Glass.png [gimpchat.com]
http://littlesvr.ca/images/thumbnails/apng.png [littlesvr.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
Looks good in pre-lobotomized opera. And Mozilla.
In my day ... (Score:2)
Now stay off my lawn!
APNGASM??? (Score:2)
APNGASM is what you get when you search for the Assessor's Parcel Number on a desirable piece of property and find out it's clean.
Put that effort into the browsers (Score:3)
A quick search turned up this tool for converting animated GIFs to APNG:
http://gif2apng.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
Sure it could probably be built on and improved, but the real issue are the browsers. I just checked on MacOS X with Firefox, Google Chrome, Opera and Safari. Of those browsers only Firefox and Opera supported APNG.
The kickstarter should, IMHO 'focus' on:
- APNG awareness (available converters, creation tools, viewers, etc)
- Getting key websites to support it. I am thinking of sites such as Tumblr.
- Pushing for support in other main-stream browsers (IE, Safari, Google Chrome)
Re: (Score:2)
I should mention there is a plugin-in for APNG support in Google Chrome, but that is still a handicap:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/apng/ehkepjiconegkhpodgoaeamnpckdbblp [google.com]
Animated==movie (Score:2)
If it's animated, it's a movie. I don't see why we need to overload our image formats with movie features. If you're going to show a movie, use a movie format, and stop pretending its a static image. This crap may have made sense back when Compuserve was bigger than the Internet, but that was a long time ago.
Name me one reason why a movie-format-pretending-to-be-a-static-image-format is a useful thing today.
Re: (Score:2)
WebP is just the I-frame format of WebM.
WebM is caught up in the patent fights right now. Safari isn't going to support either WebM or WebP, because WebM is a chief competitor to h264, and Apple own key patents on h264.
There are no business reasons not to support APNG - it's simply too niche for companies to much care about right now.
Re: (Score:2)
WebM is caught up in the patent fights right now. Safari isn't going to support either WebM or WebP, because WebM is a chief competitor to h264, and Apple own key patents on h264
The real problem is that there is no WebM implementation available under a license that is anywhere near acceptable to Apple. That's similar to the problem with gcc, where gcc 4.2 is the last version with a license that is acceptable to Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
It goes the other way too. Firefox is without h264 support because, though the consortium is willing to give the mozilla foundation a no-fee license to the patents, they won't permit automatic licensing to anyone who wants to fork the project - and thus can't be compatible with the open-source development model. Thus no h264 on Firefox, and no WebM on Safari. Couple with similar situations over audio codecs, and if you want to use html5 video you'll have to supply two encodes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plugin-free browsers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Either way, I'm honestly more hopeful for that than for the apng bits.