Image MIME Reference
NAPLPS
North American Presentation Level Protocol Syntax
image/naplps
VS
PTI Image (Personal/Vanity Tree)
image/prs.pti
PTI
A complete technical comparison of North American Presentation Level Protocol Syntax and PTI Image (Personal/Vanity Tree) — covering compression, feature support, browser compatibility, magic bytes, and when to choose each format.
Equal browser support
Feature Support
| Feature | NAPLPS | PTI |
|---|---|---|
| Transparency (Alpha) | ✕ No | ✕ No |
| Animation Support | Yes | ✕ No |
| Progressive Loading | Yes | ✕ No |
| HDR Support | ✕ No | ✕ No |
| EXIF Metadata | ✕ No | ✕ No |
| ICC Color Profile | ✕ No | ✕ No |
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)
PTI Image (Personal/Vanity Tree)
image/prs.pti
Extension
.pti
Container
Proprietary
Compression
Unknown / Proprietary
Algorithm
Unknown
Color Depth
Unknown
Developed by
Jürn Laun
Released
1999
Magic Bytes
Unknown
Browser Support Comparison
| Browser | NAPLPS | PTI |
|---|---|---|
|
|
✕ | ✕ |
|
|
✕ | ✕ |
|
|
✕ | ✕ |
|
|
✕ | ✕ |
|
|
✕ | ✕ |
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
PTI
PTI Strengths
- Provided a registered MIME type namespace for a specific application's proprietary image format without conflicting with standard web types
Limitations
- Completely undocumented and unsupported in modern ecosystems
- Zero web browser compatibility
- Falls into the 'vanity' tree, making it irrelevant for standard cross-platform data exchange
When to choose which format
NAPLPS
Use NAPLPS when…
- 1980s Videotex Services
- Prodigy Online Service Graphics
- Historical BBS Terminal Graphics
- Legacy Teletext Broadcasts
PTI
Use PTI when…
- Legacy Application Specific Workflows
- Proprietary Image Storage