1
I don't think there's anything to support. They're just files, as far as the server is concerned.
IE10 doesn't support them, however.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at Wed Apr 3 08:22:01 2013 (+rSRq)
2
Steven's right, the server treats them like any other PNG. If you use any of the image manipulation functions (like resize) it will probably deanimate them.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wed Apr 3 08:31:43 2013 (PiXy!)
3
Animated PNGs take up more space than animated GIFs? I wonder why...
Posted by: Siergen at Wed Apr 3 16:29:13 2013 (Ao4Kw)
4
A lot more data in them?
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Wed Apr 3 18:26:37 2013 (F7DdT)
5
"Animated png" isn't really a thing, so if it works in FF, that's just the latest thing in a long line of Netscape people making stuff up. There was a .mng spec proposed but never adopted for animated pngs.
Chrome doesn't animate them either.
Posted by: RickC at Wed Apr 3 19:13:53 2013 (WQ6Vb)
6
When I said '"Animated png" isn't really a thing' I meant as opposed to .mng files...
Posted by: RickC at Wed Apr 3 19:14:23 2013 (WQ6Vb)
7
When I said '"Animated png" isn't really a thing' I meant as opposed to .mng files...
I'm confused. So is this an .mng file then?
'cause I don't want one of those.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Wed Apr 3 19:50:04 2013 (F7DdT)
8
file extension say's it's a gif, but you knew that. I didn't examine the bytes.
MNG was designed to be an animation extension to the PNG format, but it never caught on. I suppose I was being pedantic. FWIW, those images don't animate in Chrome, either.
Siergen, gif is IIRC limited to 256 colors; PNGs can support true colors, so an image with a large palette could easily dwarf the size of a similar GIF.
Posted by: RickC at Fri Apr 5 20:12:22 2013 (WQ6Vb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
