Compared against sIFR

Hi Fambi,

I am not very familiar with all the features of sIFR, so I can't really compare all the details. But here are some of the common differences

text2PNG uses PNG images instead of flash files, which means it doesn't require any plugins (no z-index issues, better browser support, easily styled via CSS)
text2PNG support shadow and text rotation.
text2PNG uses CSS sprites for images which will load the images faster when the image load.
sIFR slows down a lot when replacing large amount of text (for example 50 text replacements).

in the other hand, FaceLift uses a very similar approach to text2PNG, some of the difference are the CSS sprites text2PNG uses (this will help when loading a lot of text replacements).
sometimes it seems the replacement is lagging here because of the load time for google ads, if you use jQuery you can use the dom ready function which will load even faster.

I haven't tested FaceLift throughly, but it doesn't use CSS sprites which will slow the replacement if there are many images.

Finaly, our hosted solution support 188 fonts and eliminate all the requirement for the server and use our server to load the images.The stand alone solution includes a font managment section to help add fonts.

The reason we're not using jQuery or another framework is we don't want to load the whole script for users who don't need it or already included it in their page. However, it should be very easy to change the code to use jQuery. You can always change the JavaScript file and place it in your server. It'll still work with our hosted solution.

If you made a jQuery plugin, we'll be more than happy to post it on our website.

let me know if you have any other questions.

Thanks
Sam