[standards-jig] NEW: User Avatars (JEP-0084)

Matt Tucker matt at jivesoftware.com
Thu May 8 13:41:09 UTC 2003


Hey all,

I just checked, and the GIF patent supposedly expires June 19, 2003. 
Also, it's not even clear that programs that just display GIF images are 
encumbered by the patent -- many argue it's just those that create GIFs. 
So, since so many people still use the format, it doesn't seem like a 
big deal to make it an option.

Regards,
Matt

Rachel Blackman wrote:
>>On Wednesday 07 May 2003 06:46 pm, Tijl Houtbeckers wrote:
>>
>>>- drop GIF (considering it has patent issues for opensource
>>>applications anyway)
>>
>>I agree.  If adventurous clients wish to use GIF anyway (like I probably
>>will  do with Psi), they can bite the patent bullet and do a GIF->PNG/MNG 
>>conversion before publishing.  What do others think?
> 
> 
> To play devil's advocate...if you support GIF still, it should in theory be
> possible to do something like extending the AIM transport to pull down AIM
> buddy icons as Jabber avatars.  I realize the gateway transports are not a
> high priority for design stuff, but there /is/ something to be said for it;
> the more a transport supports of the legacy medium and translates into
> Jabber, the easier it is to get general users onto Jabber without them
> complaining about loss of functionality to legacy contacts.
> 
> Don't take this to be a strong argument in favor of keeping GIF, just a
> sort of 'what if' circumstance being suggested. :)
> 
> 
>>>- restrict PNG's to compression method 0 (deflate)
>>>- restrict JPG to standard encoding (as opposed to progressive encoding)
>>
>>I'm not sure if we should go there.  Clients should not be required to do 
>>image checking or reformatting (well, unless they wish to use an
>>unsupported  image format).
> 
> 
> I disagree.  I'm not sure it's necessary to limit to these functions, but I
> think clients have to do image checking /anyway/ (or possibly reformatting)
> because of the MUST qualifier on the image dimensions (between 32 and 64 in
> each direction) and image size (8k).  Why not keep them to sane minimums
> for the format as well, since you already have to be doing the checking?
> 
> 
>>>As for animation, wether MNG or GIF or something else, I think it
>>>should be a seperated from the static image.
>>
>>I say that if MNG is acceptable for the JEP, then there should be no need
>>to  have a separate 'animated' entry.
> 
> 
> This, I agree wholeheartedly on.  Plus, if 'animated' stuff including Flash
> were allowed, you just KNOW someone would put together a Flash avatar with
> irritating noises.  And then we'd have people seeing red and foaming at the
> mouth over it, and there'd be a bloody rampage, and it'd be generally
> unpleasant. ;)
> 




More information about the Standards mailing list