On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 16:36:48 -0600 "Nathan Ingersoll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> 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. agreed - or not even a negotiation. client sends a list of formats it can handle (maybe with a priority number for each as it may handle one better than another) and the thumbnailer then choses one - if it can't, it just reports an error that it can't generate a thumb. -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
