Jump to content

Talk:PNG

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pronunciation

[edit]

I've never heard anyone pronounce it "Ping" and most people would look at you blankly if you said it, which was why I thought writing "the official pronunciation" seemed a bit odd. Most people don't read the implementation standard to find out how to pronounce an abbreviation. Ojw 11:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC) (henceforth referring to libpng as l'Academié Pingèse)[reply]

Everyone I know pronounces it "ping". --KJBracey 14:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The prononciation is defined as "ping" by the official specification. It's a specification feature! --Adhemar
Strictly speaking, abbreviations are never pronounced in proper English. The official specification is simply wrong (and yes, this is "feature"): it is more accurate to say P-N-G is officially called or referred to as 'ping' (which I have never heard used by the way). There is no pronounciation, proper or improper, for any abbreviation including PNG. I just found this a bit odd and annoying especially for an encyclopedia. Yes, it's the language police!!!! 207.112.56.138 01:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's absurd; people pronounce abbreviations all the time. NASA is na-suh, for example, GNU is gnu, and BASIC is pronounced like basic. If you meant something else, please elaborate, because I cannot interpret your message in a way that makes sense.--Prosfilaes 04:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most people I know pronounce it as "png" or "p-n-g", but then again, I live in the Netherlands. There is also the question of whether a specification should address what is essentially a linguistic issue. Suppose for a moment that a specification would contain the line "This format is called Foo, which is pronounced 'bar'." Would you accept that? I sure as hell wouldn't, so by extention I don't see a reason to accept this for PNG either. 82.139.85.9 (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People may pronounce abbreviations/initialisms "all the time", however, this may develop confusion amongst the tech community. As mentioned earlier, individuals may "stare blankly" if one were to pronounce it in such a manner. I for one, agree, seeing ping as more commonly recognized as the act of triggering a node (ping/pong) on a network to respond via ICMP. 66.244.80.2 (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Culturally, suggesting both pronunciations (as "ping" or "P-N-G") seems appropriate. As mentioned above, in the USA, many acronyms are pronounced as words, if they don't sound awkward, such as NASA ("naa-suh") or Space Shuttle contract STSOC ("Stee-sock"), but not IRS (spoken "I-R-S" since "urrs" or "ires" would be awkward) and not DoD (spoken "D-oh-D" since "Dodd" would be odd). For company names, there's "AT&T" (spoken "A-T-and-T") or "IBM" (spoken "I-B-M") versus "DEC" (spoken "Deck" not "D-E-C"), and DEC's computer OS "VAX/VMS" was a combination word+letters (spoken "Vacks-V-M-S" not "vims"). Some people in the USA commented that Operation Iraqi Freedom should have been renamed as Operation Iraqi Liberation ("OIL" as the word). Hence, pronouncing "PNG" either as a word, or letters, fits English as spoken in the USA plus other countries. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding more fuel to the fire; NASA is pronouced as a word because people recongize it such. GNU is both an acronym and a word in itself (a gnu is a horny beast, to quote the FSF). AT&T is not recognized as a word (by anyone I ever heard of) and would be ackward to pronouce; it doesn't fit how people speak english or any other language (that I know of). PNG falls into the category of abreviations which do not look like words and would be ackward to pronouce if tried. Ping, I agree, is a close resemblence to PNG, but most (I suggest) people who do not speak english natively would 'stare blankly' if you suggested that the way to pronouce the name of the image file format PNG is "ping". Anyways, the discussion is a bit moot. The official pronouciatin of PNG is ping, regradless of how much sense that makes (or how little) 80.162.60.16 (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are no vowels in the acronym, it should be pronounced officially as Pee-en-jee. Also, acronyms should not be a word. WiinterU (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I direct this conversation to this page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym_and_initialism there is a difference between NASA, and PNG, NASA is an acronym, an abbreviation that sounds like a word, PNG is an initialism, you say the initials of the word. DFTBA! 216.67.75.63 (talk) 06:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One: This is a dead discussion; there's no point in moving it.
Two: They're both initialisms, and in American English typically pronounced as words, not initials.
Three: Nothing you say will change that: the usage is far too widespread. See above.
Cheers. -- Elphion (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also never heard anyone refer to a "PNG" file as a "PING". The whole bunch of examples of acronyms that are spoken as words or acronyms that are spoken letter-by-letter misses one simple rule: An acronym with a normal "English-like" arrangement of consonants and vowels (or "Y"), whether coincidentally or by design, probably will be spoken as a word. On this basis, it's no wonder that no-one really speaks the acronym "PNG" because it doesn't contain a vowel. Ian Fieggen (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the discussion above? When someone says "I've never heard that" and someone answers "I've always heard that", then it is clear that that kind of argument cannot settle the matter. What is clear is that both pronunciations are used, despite all the argument about why that shouldn't be true. -- Elphion (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only authoritative source for the pronunciation is the one given in the citation. It matters little whether it should be pronounced that way or, even, whether it is pronounced that way unless someone can provide a source which suggests that it is not pronounced that way. Until it appears in a dictionary we only have one source - the article that was cited - and even if is in a dictionary, that's just another source.

Jbowler (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing an APNG decoder and came here to reference something unrelated, but I just realized that the article offers an alternate pronunciation for PNG before the official pronunciation. And here I see that this may be an old dead-horse topic, but as an authoritative source, Wikipedia should be more exacting: List the official pronunciation first!

The creators of the word/initialism/whatever-your-spin-wants-to-call-it specifically and explicitly say it is pronounced "ping", with full and pointed awareness of the GIF problem.

Everyone else is wrong.

This is true whether people like it or not; whether it makes sense or not; whether mispronunciations exist in the wild or not; whether speakers have bothered to read the spec or not; whether you classify it as an initialism or something else. If you are disagreeing with the creator(s) of a word, you are placing your own ego about how things work above the rightful owner of the work.

I'm going to edit the article to place the official pronunciation FIRST, and make clear the second is an unsanctioned alternative found in the wild.

—Duoas 05:00 3 Dec 2019 (UTC)

The people who call it 'ping' are probably the same people who pronounce gif as 'jif' - i.e. idiots — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.230.219 (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that it should be listed first given the 'ping' pronunciation is given in the ISO/IEC standard. With that stated, the idea that the creator of a word's opinion should determine how it's pronounced for the rest of eternity is completely nonsensical. PNG isn't a brand name, it's a non-patented file format and the pronunciation is therefore a reflection of common usage, not the opinions of an individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.24.200.63 (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see this horse is already nearly dead, but found my way here as someone who falls into the 'never' camp when it comes to hearing it pronounced 'PNG'. This phrase: (PNG, officially pronounced PING, more commonly pronounced PEE-en-JEE) seems wholly made up and is unsupported by the source it sites. I am proposing removing the more as it's well established in this discussion that short of a source indicating which pronunciation is more common it's all anecdotal. (PNG, officially pronounced PING, commonly pronounced PEE-en-JEE) Ccunning (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's wholly made up. Standard pronunciation rules would dictate that when you have three consonants written together in capital letters without a vowel you'd pronounce it like an initialism. Beyond that, you typically don't have a source for any issue of pronunciation like this. It would require some kind of professionally administered global survey, which nobody is ever going to conduct due to the trivial nature of the topic. I personally would have absolutely no doubt that PEE-en-JEE would be the more common pronunciation across the world due to: 1) the fact it complies with standard pronunciation rules; 2) the high likelihood that people would first be exposed to the word in a written format rather than by hearing it in a conversation; 3) because the reasons why "Ping" is "correct" stem from obscure quotes by the creators of the format and an ISO/IEC standard hardly anyone will have ever heard of. In general, I always think arguments for changes that are highly likely to be wrong in reality and which are justified by appeals to impossible sourcing requirements rarely improve Wikipedia articles. 119.24.200.63 (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from OptiPNG

[edit]

Recently OptiPNG was considered for deletion, with no consensus emerging. When that result was challenged at deletion review, the suggestion was made repeatedly that the best course of action would be to merge the article (or a summarized version of it) into this article. I am bringing that suggestion here for discussion. Another possibility to consider is a simple redirect, without a merge. Thank you. Chick Bowen 00:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most of these optimization tools should be discussed together. If you read the paper by the author of OptiPNG, which is a very good source for technical info on the optimization issue, you'll see that the techniques employed by these programs are generally the same. Another good source is the chapter in Sayood's book cited in pngcrush#References. I'll add more technical details if others don't do it first. I don't have a lot of time to dedicate to this lately, mainly thanks to the threatened Great Purge of biographies that has to be dealt with at WT:COMPSCI and elsewhere. Pcap ping 06:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's now been redirected by User:Stormie. The history is still under the redirect if more is needed, including the refs that were in the old article. Chick Bowen 20:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning OptiPNG, related question: How does it fit within the (optimizing) tool list? It doesn't say how it relates to those. I ask because I've used it within IrfanView, but it's not mentioned here. 2600:100C:B25A:3C9B:DD5D:EF41:EDCA:6F79 (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PNG Decompression Bomb Vulnerabilities

[edit]

Should the article include anything related to vulnerabilities, such as PNG Decompression Bomb? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Portable Network Graphics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal PNG Explanation

[edit]

The provided contents of a minimal PNG containing a single red pixel does not explain the purpose of each included byte/parameter, nor what the compressed IDAT data decompresses to. For example, the purpose of the bytes 0x08 0xD7 in IDAT does not appear to be stated anywhere on the page. In particular, I attempted to decompress the data in IDAT by hand using the static Huffman code, and extracted the values 0x00 0xFF 0x00 0x00, which makes sense, corresponding to one line with filter type 0 (none), and one literal red pixel (0xFF 0x00 0x00). This decoded data was terminated by the end-of-block signal; however, there were still four more bytes remaining in the content of the IDAT chunk before the CRC with the values 0x03 0x01 0x01 0x00. What are these bytes for?

2601:182:280:C0F0:D9BB:9350:ABFD:196E (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PNG&oldid=1266617256"