From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: TODO additions
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 22:32:22 -0500
Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org
Message-ID: <E187p1K-0004Wa-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <rzqiszzc41k.fsf@albion.dl.ac.uk>
	<E185wzJ-0000zO-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<rzq8z0hyvcn.fsf@albion.dl.ac.uk>
	<E186wTn-00030R-00@fencepost.gnu.org> <rzqpttq1nfk.fsf@albion.dl.ac.uk>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1036212221 26033 80.91.224.249 (2 Nov 2002 04:43:41 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 04:43:41 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Return-path: <emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 187q8K-0006ll-00
	for <emacs-devel@main.gmane.org>; Sat, 02 Nov 2002 05:43:40 +0100
Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173])
	by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 187qEi-00036T-00
	for <emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org>; Sat, 02 Nov 2002 05:50:16 +0100
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10)
	id 187p2c-0001Hi-00; Fri, 01 Nov 2002 22:33:42 -0500
Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10)
	id 187p1N-0000wG-00
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2002 22:32:25 -0500
Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10)
	id 187p1L-0000w2-00
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2002 22:32:24 -0500
Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10)
	id 187p1L-0000vt-00
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2002 22:32:23 -0500
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10)
	id 187p1K-0004Wa-00; Fri, 01 Nov 2002 22:32:22 -0500
Original-To: d.love@dl.ac.uk
In-reply-to: <rzqpttq1nfk.fsf@albion.dl.ac.uk> (message from Dave Love on 31
	Oct 2002 18:19:11 +0000)
Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Emacs development discussions. <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel/>
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:9063
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:9063

    I think that a browser should be able to render such stuff regardless.
    In some cases pages are actually unusable without the background
    because of what losing `designers' have put on top.

Many pages are unusable without Internet Explorer, or unusable without
Flash--by comparison, would these be significant in number?

I don't have personal experience with either kind of page, so I can't
say whether supporting background images "correctly" does more harm or
more good.  What I can say is that people should not blindly assume
that supporting them "correctly" is the right choice.  Maybe it is,
and maybe not.

But maybe the issue is not a real one.  If "correct" implementation of
background images is not a possible, then why worry about the issue?

    PPM does colour and is supported generally, so it may be able to
    replace both PBM and XPM.

If this works, I agree it is a good idea.  So it's just a matter of
verifying that this really works.