Free webp to jpg
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)
Full NAPLPS reference →
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
Full PTI reference →

Browser Support Comparison

Browser NAPLPS PTI
Chrome Chrome
Firefox Firefox
Safari Safari
Edge Edge
IE IE (Legacy)
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
Share this comparison