5 Apr
2012
5 Apr
'12
7:07 p.m.
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 09:19:41 -0700 (PDT)
Darrell Anderson <humanreadable(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Even if we decide we want the animation, there's no reason to keep it in such an
obscure
format—gif is no longer patent-encumbered, and apng is a viable alternative. However,
since no one so far has admitted to even seeing the thing before, I would say it can
probably
be downgraded to a static image without causing a riot.
If we feel we absolutely need to keep the animation, I can try to edit it--I'm
familiar enough
with the GIMP, but I don't often handle animated images, given that they mostly went
out
with the <BLINK> tag.
Is there a special reason a mng file is used rather
than png? If mng is required then somebody with gimp skills
needs to fix the image. If png can be used then I can
convert the file myself. Please let me know.
> iirc, MNG was a competitor to GIF that failed to
gain
traction.
Yes.
I can see in the code that the intent in the kickoff menu is to use an animated graphic.
My focus
for my previous question is: is mng (animation) necessary? If not, then I can convert the
image to
png and patch the source code to use png rather than mng. Straightforward fix even for me.
:)
If you want to keep the mng for animation, then the only app I know supporting mng
editing is gimp
and that is way out of my league.