Hi Kristen, > >> Also, XPM is pretty flexible here, there's no need to use 0-9 digits > >> only. For instance, you can do two look up tables, one for images with > >> LUTs up to 64 entries and another for LUTs with more. E.g. > >> > >> a-za-z...@$ and 'aa ab ac .. pp' or something like that. > > > > I realize this - this was an implementation choice to keep the code > > less complex, thinking that it would be better to favor that vs. > > saving some bytes on the xpm. > > The wording on my part was poor. Of course you knew this. My intent > was to encourage the optimization of the xpm format. Remember these > images are up to 64k in size, so a difference between transferring / > using up 128k and 192k respectively is quite significant. The added > (minor) code complexity is definitely worth it.
we need such optimization in this case. We are already accepting a penalty hit by having to transfer the images over D-Bus. So every single byte we can save here is a win. Regards Marcel _______________________________________________ ofono mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ofono.org/listinfo/ofono
