Free webp to jpg
Image MIME Reference
IEF

Image Exchange Format

image/ief
VS

North American Presentation Level Protocol Syntax

image/naplps
NAPLPS

A complete technical comparison of Image Exchange Format and North American Presentation Level Protocol Syntax — covering compression, feature support, browser compatibility, magic bytes, and when to choose each format.

Equal browser support

Feature Support

Feature IEF NAPLPS
Transparency (Alpha) ✕ No ✕ No
Animation Support ✕ No Yes
Progressive Loading ✕ No Yes
HDR Support ✕ No ✕ No
EXIF Metadata ✕ No ✕ No
ICC Color Profile ✕ No ✕ No
Image Exchange Format
image/ief
Extension
.ief
Container TIFF Class B (TIFF-B)
Compression Lossless (MH, MR, MMR) / Uncompressed
Algorithm
MHMRMMRUncompressed
Color Depth 1-bit (Monochrome)
Developed by IETF Network Fax Working Group
Released 1992
Magic Bytes
49 49 2A 00 (Little-endian) / 4D 4D 00 2A (Big-endian)
Full IEF reference →
North American Presentation Level Protocol Syntax
image/naplps
Extension
.nap.naplps
Container NAPLPS Byte Stream
Compression Uncompressed (Tokenized ASCII Commands)
Algorithm
None (Coordinate encoding)
Color Depth 16-color palette (Indexed from larger color spaces)
Developed by ANSI / CSA (Based on Canadian CRC's Telidon)
Released 1983
Magic Bytes
1B (Variable / ESC sequences)
Full NAPLPS reference →

Browser Support Comparison

Browser IEF NAPLPS
Chrome Chrome
Firefox Firefox
Safari Safari
Edge Edge
IE IE (Legacy)
IEF

IEF Strengths

  • Provided a standard method for exchanging bi-level fax images during the early days of the Internet
  • Supported multi-page documents
  • Leveraged the highly resilient and well-documented TIFF container
Limitations
  • Completely obsolete and unsupported in modern computing environments
  • Strictly limited to 1-bit monochrome data, lacking color or grayscale capabilities
  • Magic bytes overlap completely with standard TIFF, making specific filetype detection difficult without parsing internal tags
NAPLPS

NAPLPS Strengths

  • Extremely bandwidth-efficient, enabling colorful graphical interfaces over early 300 baud dial-up connections
  • Resolution-independent vector scaling allowed the exact same file to be displayed accurately on varied early PC monitors and television sets
Limitations
  • Completely obsolete and unsupported by modern web technologies
  • Relies heavily on stateful parsing and terminal emulators rather than straightforward file decoding
  • Easily misidentified by MIME sniffers as plain text or generic binary streams due to the lack of a standardized file header

When to choose which format

IEF
Use IEF when…
  • Legacy Fax Transmissions
  • Early Internet Gateways
  • Archival
NAPLPS
Use NAPLPS when…
  • 1980s Videotex Services
  • Prodigy Online Service Graphics
  • Historical BBS Terminal Graphics
  • Legacy Teletext Broadcasts
Share this comparison