On 12/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't think there's a need to require that 'thumbnailing' > must involve a specific means for storing some standard image format > somewhere.. one may not want or need to store anything really. There's > really very little difference between 'thumbnailing', 'iconifying', > 'pre-viewing', ... or 'full-viewing'.
At the very least, it should be a negotiable process where clients can specify the result formats they can support and the thumbnailer can select from those supported formats. A fallback requirement of png or some other standard format would be reasonable. This would allow us to support jpg, mpeg, edje, or whatever format we choose, and any clients that also support those formats could benefit. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
