Re: [Gimp-developer] http://developer.gimp.org/
On 10-Feb-2003, Tino Schwarze wrote: > It's broken on Netscape 4.7 (disabling Style Sheets helps, but it looks > rather ugly then). There is text behind the image etc. But I guess it's > nice if displayed correctly. Netscape 4.x is known to be broken with alot of valid css, so therefore, please upgrade to something gecko based. -- Patrick "Diablo-D3" McFarland || [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989 ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: copyright & credits (was Re:http://developer.gimp.org/)
On 10 Feb 2003, at 15:34, Carol Spears wrote: > On 2003-02-10 at 2017.52 +0100, Rapha?l Quinet typed this: > > On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 12:26:47 -0500, Carol Spears [copyright notices on every page] > > > well, there is a little history to that inclusion. a commercial > > > site stole the design. the designer had serious issues. i guess > > > that the whole footer was developed that time, and was made like > > > it is more for balance on the page. > > > > > > the reason cited for the theft was that they found the layout on a > > > googlable web page (the old hurl site) and that it wasn't > > > copyrighted. > > > > Obviously, the thief who claimed that does not know much about the > > copyright laws (regardless of the country he/she is living in), or > > is trying to ignore them on purpose. IANAL, but it is not necessary > > to add a visible copyright message. Since several years now, most > > countries in the world have adopted laws that make every published > > work copyrighted by default, unless the author explicitely states > > that the work is in the public domain. So copying anything without > > the author's consent is illegal. > > it was a quick solution that worked at the moment. probably it would > be best to ask gnu.org what to do and just do that. Usually, from what I have heard from other web masters, threatening to get a lawyer involved and/or to go to the hosting provider helps. Depends a bit on the country where the infringer lives, though (thief is a word reserved for those who take away property). If that does not help, actually writing the host provider may help, especially in countries with repressive copyright regimes, such as the US, or with extreme 'consumer protection' laws, such as Germany. IANAL, of course. -- branko collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Re: copyright & credits (was Re: http://developer.gimp.org/)
On 2003-02-10 at 2017.52 +0100, Rapha?l Quinet typed this: > On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 12:26:47 -0500, Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2003-02-10 at 1337.37 +0100, Rapha?l Quinet typed this: > > > I see that the footer of the sample page that you provided includes a > > > reference to "The GIMP Team". I don't know how others feel about > > > that, but I do not like to give credits on every page of the site. > > > The GIMP itself does not include a "credits" entry at the bottom of > > > every menu and those who really want to know who contributed to the > > > GIMP have to locate the appropriate entry. Similary, I do not think > > > that it is necessary to include a copyright notice and a link to a > > > list of contributors on every page. > > > > > well, there is a little history to that inclusion. a commercial site > > stole the design. the designer had serious issues. i guess that the > > whole footer was developed that time, and was made like it is more for > > balance on the page. > > > > the reason cited for the theft was that they found the layout on a > > googlable web page (the old hurl site) and that it wasn't copyrighted. > > Obviously, the thief who claimed that does not know much about the > copyright laws (regardless of the country he/she is living in), or is > trying to ignore them on purpose. IANAL, but it is not necessary to > add a visible copyright message. Since several years now, most > countries in the world have adopted laws that make every published > work copyrighted by default, unless the author explicitely states that > the work is in the public domain. So copying anything without the > author's consent is illegal. > it was a quick solution that worked at the moment. probably it would be best to ask gnu.org what to do and just do that. > Besides, why should the copyright notice be visible? If the main goal > is to prevent someone from copying the HTML code or the layout of the > pages, it would be enough to add a statement in a HTML comment. Or if > it has to be visible on the page, then I would go for "font-size:1px". > i want whatever causes the least amount of noise. and looks the most tasteful. :) > > as a user, i would see the list of names of those involved with gimp, > > and all i wanted was to be included as well. > > > > i searched and searched for photos and more information, which in itself > > might be a good reason not to put lists of people on any of the sites > > ... > > Heh. ;-) Well, I certainly understand that it is nice to be part > of that list. However, such lists are often biased. Not only because > they often keep some old contributors longer than necessary (nobody > dares removing them from the list or creating a "past contributors" > section) but also because some contributors do not get the credits > that they would deserve. In some other project, I was surprised to > see that some people were not credited altough they did a lot more > work than some of those who were included in the credits for that > project. It turns out that those guys were usually keeping a low > profile and they never asked to be included in the credits. One might > think that they were simply too shy, but this is probably a cultural > thing as well (most of these people were from [Far-]Eastern > countries). > tis an interesting thing. probably the very best thing to do is to keep using other gimp sites for the "fan stuff". keep most of the personalities off from the main site. actually, the coolness of the developers does interfer with their work on gimp, some. people would like to hang and chat with them. it might still be better to make all things gimp look mean and scary! i am open to changes like this. > Anyway, it is probably unavoidable to have a list of contributors > somewhere. I am not really against that, but I would not like to > advertise it too much. As I wrote in my previous message, I do not > think that it is necessary to include a link on every page. > > > as the person who wrote team.html, it is hard and unsavory to come up > > with titles and such. if this page disappears, i wouldn't mind. i > > would however like my mom to see my name there before it goes. (i am > > proud of what is there ...) > > Hey, wait... I was talking about developer.gimp.org, not about the > new design for the main site. It looks like you are talking about the > latter. I didn't know that you had written a "team.html" for the new > site. I should have checked first, sorry. > if you don't mind the design of scizzos, there will be a problem keeping the two sites separate. dgo, wgo-1.0, wgo-1.2, wgo-1.4, mgo is unstable and right now is wgo-1.2, wgo is stable and currently is wgo-1.0. does that make sense? and is it useful? > [Later...] Ah, now I see it (on mmmaybe.g.o). Well, my name is not > there, so this is a _proof_ that these lists _are_ biased! ;-) > Errr... No, seriously, this list is fine. Don't add my name there.
Re: [Gimp-developer] http://developer.gimp.org/
On 10 Feb 2003 18:39:09 +0100, Niklas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 13:37, Raphaël Quinet wrote: > > I am not sure that the front page should have some kind of news, > > though. [...] The home page of the developers' > > site would only have a set of links to the important sections of the > > site, even if this duplicates some parts of the navigation bar. > > Yes, but what should be here instead? Some info about what > developer.gimp.org is? Yes, something like that. And maybe duplicate some links from the navigation bar, with some additional explanations about what you can find on those pages. > > That's fine for me. There are only a few requirements that I would > > like to put on the design: [...] > All this is no problem at all. The big problem in this case would be the > CVS stuff for the developer.gimp.org, I don't have knowledge enough to > create a CVS-server for the site. Any ideas? You don't have to worry about that. If we do not need remote CVS access, we can simply set up a local repository on wilber (the box that runs the web server). If you do not have an account on that machine, then we can use a remote CVS server. For example, we could apply for the creation of a new module on cvs.gnome.org. That should be possible. > That is great, I would be more then happy to work with the design. > You are welcome! I think that we should move that discussion to the gimp-web list, if it is still working (it has been silent for a bit more than a year). As a test, I have posted this message to both lists and I will see if it gets through. If it does, then I suggest that we continue the discussion there. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] copyright & credits (was Re:http://developer.gimp.org/)
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 12:26:47 -0500, Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2003-02-10 at 1337.37 +0100, Rapha?l Quinet typed this: > > I see that the footer of the sample page that you provided includes a > > reference to "The GIMP Team". I don't know how others feel about > > that, but I do not like to give credits on every page of the site. > > The GIMP itself does not include a "credits" entry at the bottom of > > every menu and those who really want to know who contributed to the > > GIMP have to locate the appropriate entry. Similary, I do not think > > that it is necessary to include a copyright notice and a link to a > > list of contributors on every page. > > > well, there is a little history to that inclusion. a commercial site > stole the design. the designer had serious issues. i guess that the > whole footer was developed that time, and was made like it is more for > balance on the page. > > the reason cited for the theft was that they found the layout on a > googlable web page (the old hurl site) and that it wasn't copyrighted. Obviously, the thief who claimed that does not know much about the copyright laws (regardless of the country he/she is living in), or is trying to ignore them on purpose. IANAL, but it is not necessary to add a visible copyright message. Since several years now, most countries in the world have adopted laws that make every published work copyrighted by default, unless the author explicitely states that the work is in the public domain. So copying anything without the author's consent is illegal. Besides, why should the copyright notice be visible? If the main goal is to prevent someone from copying the HTML code or the layout of the pages, it would be enough to add a statement in a HTML comment. Or if it has to be visible on the page, then I would go for "font-size:1px". > as a user, i would see the list of names of those involved with gimp, > and all i wanted was to be included as well. > > i searched and searched for photos and more information, which in itself > might be a good reason not to put lists of people on any of the sites > ... Heh. ;-) Well, I certainly understand that it is nice to be part of that list. However, such lists are often biased. Not only because they often keep some old contributors longer than necessary (nobody dares removing them from the list or creating a "past contributors" section) but also because some contributors do not get the credits that they would deserve. In some other project, I was surprised to see that some people were not credited altough they did a lot more work than some of those who were included in the credits for that project. It turns out that those guys were usually keeping a low profile and they never asked to be included in the credits. One might think that they were simply too shy, but this is probably a cultural thing as well (most of these people were from [Far-]Eastern countries). Anyway, it is probably unavoidable to have a list of contributors somewhere. I am not really against that, but I would not like to advertise it too much. As I wrote in my previous message, I do not think that it is necessary to include a link on every page. > as the person who wrote team.html, it is hard and unsavory to come up > with titles and such. if this page disappears, i wouldn't mind. i > would however like my mom to see my name there before it goes. (i am > proud of what is there ...) Hey, wait... I was talking about developer.gimp.org, not about the new design for the main site. It looks like you are talking about the latter. I didn't know that you had written a "team.html" for the new site. I should have checked first, sorry. [Later...] Ah, now I see it (on mmmaybe.g.o). Well, my name is not there, so this is a _proof_ that these lists _are_ biased! ;-) Errr... No, seriously, this list is fine. Don't add my name there. But I am surprised to see a "Web Team", though. Probably something that was not discussed on the mailing list, again... ;-) Regarding the "Core Team", you could simply include the list from the AUTHORS file (current CVS). Or maybe the results from the script that I started writing a few weeks ago. If I ever get a chance to finish it. I would like to be able to include a list of those who have contributed something through Bugzilla. This is a bit tricky. > > [...] I prefer keep the list in a place that can be > > found by those who are looking for it, but without advertising it on > > every page. > > > i like on the current site how someone was included because he bought a > beer for someone (the author of this letter excluded) a beer. I think that I am a bit lost, here. I do not understand that reference. Are you refering to the current www.gimp.org site, to the developers' site or to mmmaybe.g.o? Maybe I am blind or just too thick? ;-) > i have carefully protected this site from that sort of thing. so, a > little credit there maybe Errr...
Re: [Gimp-developer] http://developer.gimp.org/
Hi, On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 13:37, Raphaël Quinet wrote: > That looks nice. That design looks vaguely familiar... ;-) It should look familiar.I think you might know the reason to why it should look familiar. > I am not sure that the front page should have some kind of news, > though. Having up-to-date information for the main site will be hard > enough. History shows that everybody is excited at first and supplies > a lot of news, but this slows down after a while and it is difficult > to keep the site alive. So it would probably be better to keep the > news part for the main site only. The home page of the developers' > site would only have a set of links to the important sections of the > site, even if this duplicates some parts of the navigation bar. Yes, but what should be here instead? Some info about what developer.gimp.org is? > That's fine for me. There are only a few requirements that I would > like to put on the design: > - It should be clean XHTML 1.0 (or at least HTML 4.01). It looks like > this is already the case. > - The page design should not include too many images or complex > (D)HTML stuff. Again, it looks like this is fine already. > - There should be some kind of revision control system (such as CVS) > for the contents of the pages. This reduces potential problems if > there is more than one webmaster for the pages. > - For those editing the pages, the contents should be clearly > separated from the template. This means that all source files > should only contain the body of the pages (without header, footer or > navigation bar) and some build system should be able to apply the > template to these source files to generate the final HTML pages. (*) > - The source files (under revision control) and generated files should > be in different directories. Ideally, it should be possible to > rebuild everything by typing "make" in the source directory. > - The generated HTML files should be static: no server-side includes, > PHP, Perl or other fancy stuff that would put additional > requirements on the server. > - It should be possible to integrate some pages that are not using > the same templates. This will be useful for the documentation pages > generated by gtk-doc. All this is no problem at all. The big problem in this case would be the CVS stuff for the developer.gimp.org, I don't have knowledge enough to create a CVS-server for the site. Any ideas? > So if this is fine for you, then I would be happy to work together > with you on the update of the developers' site. That is great, I would be more then happy to work with the design. Regards, -- Niklas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Re: http://developer.gimp.org/
On 2003-02-10 at 1337.37 +0100, Rapha?l Quinet typed this: > > I see that the footer of the sample page that you provided includes a > reference to "The GIMP Team". I don't know how others feel about > that, but I do not like to give credits on every page of the site. > The GIMP itself does not include a "credits" entry at the bottom of > every menu and those who really want to know who contributed to the > GIMP have to locate the appropriate entry. Similary, I do not think > that it is necessary to include a copyright notice and a link to a > list of contributors on every page. > well, there is a little history to that inclusion. a commercial site stole the design. the designer had serious issues. i guess that the whole footer was developed that time, and was made like it is more for balance on the page. the reason cited for the theft was that they found the layout on a googlable web page (the old hurl site) and that it wasn't copyrighted. as a user, i would see the list of names of those involved with gimp, and all i wanted was to be included as well. i searched and searched for photos and more information, which in itself might be a good reason not to put lists of people on any of the sites ... as the person who wrote team.html, it is hard and unsavory to come up with titles and such. if this page disappears, i wouldn't mind. i would however like my mom to see my name there before it goes. (i am proud of what is there ...) > Besides the fact that I do not like to advertise the credits too much, > I think that such a list if often biased. It is hard to keep a "fair" > credits list up-to-date, whether it is for the site or for the program > as we have seen in the discussions a couple of weeks ago. In many > Free Software projects (programs, documentation, web sites, etc.) the > list of contributors is often "historical" and those who came later or > who prefer to keep a low profile and work in the background are often > under-represented. I don't know if having a biased list is better > than having no list at all. Maybe it is. But since I am aware of > this unavoidable bias, I prefer keep the list in a place that can be > found by those who are looking for it, but without advertising it on > every page. > i like on the current site how someone was included because he bought a beer for someone (the author of this letter excluded) a beer. i have carefully protected this site from that sort of thing. so, a little credit there maybe > I have the same opinion for the main site, by the way. There is a > list of people on http://www.gimp.org/the_gimp_org_about.html - It is > incredibly inaccurate (more than half of the people mentioned there > have not contributed a single line of code in the last year) but it is > there for historical reasons. It is not advertised from the other > pages. I hope that the new design will not put too much emphasis on > the credits list or on a copyright notice. > only what is needed. lots of people need to be kept happy. others might need to be kept at arms length. the copyright seems to fix both potential problems nicely. other solutions will be gladly considered. carol ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: http://developer.gimp.org/
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 11:31:42AM -0500, Carol Spears wrote: > i read of a rather elegant solution. apparently Netscape refuses to > read the tag if it contains the media attribute. so you > can set it up this way: > >media="all"> with quotes please > and netscape will happily skip the second stylesheet. OK, and when one wants everything in one CSS file, he/she can make use of NN's inability to parse comments (so-called Caio's Hack), this is probably even better solution: /*/*/ some stuff NN won't see /* */ Yeti ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Re: http://developer.gimp.org/
On 2003-02-10 at 1710.28 +0100, Rapha?l Quinet typed this:
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:16:56 +0100, "David Necas (Yeti)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
> As someone who still has to use Netscape 4.x from time to time (old
> computers, not enough memory to run newer browsers), I would like to
> be able to support Netscape 4.x as long as it does not add too many
> constraints on the design.
>
> > The best thing one can do with NN 4.x is [IMHO] to
> > (a) detect it with PHP or whatever and don't include style
> > sheets, or include a different one -- this is prohibited IIUC
>
> It is not prohibited, but I would like to avoid that if possible.
> This trick would require dynamic pages. This would not only increase
> the load on the server, but this would also prevent the pages from
> being cached in proxies. I prefer static pages.
>
good preference. the page was designed so as to have low impact on the
server on purpose. as a rule even. wilber can't take it.
> > (b) use some dirty trick
> > http://centricle.com/ref/css/filters/
> > to make it see no/other/only part of the style sheet, e.g.
> > @import url("bigstyle.css")
>
i read of a rather elegant solution. apparently Netscape refuses to
read the tag if it contains the media attribute. so you
can set it up this way:
and netscape will happily skip the second stylesheet.
http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/007/maps.html (the last paragraph)
carol
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] http://developer.gimp.org/
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:16:56 +0100, "David Necas (Yeti)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 03:37:26PM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
> >
> > > It's broken on Netscape 4.7 (disabling Style Sheets helps, but it
> > > looks rather ugly then). There is text behind the image etc. But I
> > > guess it's nice if displayed correctly.
> >
> > I don't think we have to care about browsers as obsolete and
> > known-to-be-broken as Netscape 4.7.
As someone who still has to use Netscape 4.x from time to time (old
computers, not enough memory to run newer browsers), I would like to
be able to support Netscape 4.x as long as it does not add too many
constraints on the design.
> The best thing one can do with NN 4.x is [IMHO] to
> (a) detect it with PHP or whatever and don't include style
> sheets, or include a different one -- this is prohibited IIUC
It is not prohibited, but I would like to avoid that if possible.
This trick would require dynamic pages. This would not only increase
the load on the server, but this would also prevent the pages from
being cached in proxies. I prefer static pages.
> (b) use some dirty trick
> http://centricle.com/ref/css/filters/
> to make it see no/other/only part of the style sheet, e.g.
> @import url("bigstyle.css")
I have used a similar trick in some pages that I have designed, and it
works quite well. I suggest using that.
Also, Netscape 4.x does not support the CSS borders correctly, but
there are ways around that. I am convinced that it is possible to
design the pages is such a way that they is not completely broken in
Netscape 4.x. But I would like to focus first on the way the pages
will be created (building scripts, directory structure, etc.).
> Since people still use NN 4.x, they should be able to
> display the pages in some readable (not nice) form, so I
> suggest hiding CSS for NN 4.x with @import.
I agree. There are still a number of GIMP users who are relying on
this old browser, so we should try to suppport it as long as possible.
The pages don't have to look nice, but they should at least be
readable and they should not "look broken".
-Raphaël
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] http://developer.gimp.org/
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 03:37:26PM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
>
> > It's broken on Netscape 4.7 (disabling Style Sheets helps, but it
> > looks rather ugly then). There is text behind the image etc. But I
> > guess it's nice if displayed correctly.
>
> I don't think we have to care about browsers as obsolete and
> known-to-be-broken as Netscape 4.7.
The best thing one can do with NN 4.x is [IMHO] to
(a) detect it with PHP or whatever and don't include style
sheets, or include a different one -- this is prohibited IIUC
(b) use some dirty trick
http://centricle.com/ref/css/filters/
to make it see no/other/only part of the style sheet, e.g.
@import url("bigstyle.css")
Since people still use NN 4.x, they should be able to
display the pages in some readable (not nice) form, so I
suggest hiding CSS for NN 4.x with @import.
Yeti
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] [Fwd: psd plugin patch for 0-sized layers]
Hi, "Adam D. Moss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Just tossing this to the mailing list since I sadly don't have time > or a building gimp13 tree. I expect that the problem is real > but without closer investigation the solution might be a bit dodgy > unless you're sure that this is placd such that we're not going to > use those kludged dimensions subsequently to measure how much data > to unpack, copy, realloc etc. could you (or someone else) please put this into Bugzilla then. Salut, Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] [Fwd: psd plugin patch for 0-sized layers]
Just tossing this to the mailing list since I sadly don't have time
or a building gimp13 tree. I expect that the problem is real
but without closer investigation the solution might be a bit dodgy
unless you're sure that this is placd such that we're not going to
use those kludged dimensions subsequently to measure how much data
to unpack, copy, realloc etc.
--Adam
--
Adam D. Moss . ,,^^ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.foxbox.org/ co:3
busting makes me feel good
'"Wankbadger" failed to reach MPs. "Wank-badger" succeeded.'
--- Begin Message ---
Evidently, it's valid for PhotoShop to export 0x0-sized layers, but it does
export them with actual channel data. I've made a fix locally which makes
those layers do something useful :) What do you think?
Sample output (post-patch):
LAYER RECORD (layer 2)
Layer Width: 0 (replacing with 1)
Layer Height: 0 (replacing with 1)
Layer extents: (0,0) -> (1,1)
Number of channels: 4
CHANNEL LENGTH INFO (0)
Channel TYPE: -1
Channel Data Length: 2
CHANNEL LENGTH INFO (1)
Channel TYPE: 0
Channel Data Length: 2
CHANNEL LENGTH INFO (2)
Channel TYPE: 1
Channel Data Length: 2
CHANNEL LENGTH INFO (3)
Channel TYPE: 2
Channel Data Length: 2
Blend type: PSD("mul ") = GIMP(3)
Layer Opacity: 255
Layer Clipping: 0 (base)
Layer Flags: 40 (don't preserve transparency, not
visible)
EXTRA DATA SIZE: 236
LAYER MASK DATA SIZE: 0
LAYER RANGES DATA SIZE: 0
LAYER NAME: 'COLOR ME!! =]'
Patch:
--- plug-ins/common/psd.c.orig Sun Feb 9 17:11:54 2003
+++ plug-ins/common/psd.c Sun Feb 9 17:07:04 2003
@@ -131,7 +131,7 @@
/* *** USER DEFINES *** */
/* set to TRUE if you want debugging, FALSE otherwise */
-#define PSD_DEBUG FALSE
+#define PSD_DEBUG TRUE
/* the max number of layers that this plugin should try to load */
#define MAX_LAYERS 100
@@ -953,7 +953,17 @@
psd_image.layer[layernum].x = left;
psd_image.layer[layernum].y = top;
psd_image.layer[layernum].width = right-left;
+ if (psd_image.layer[layernum].width == 0) {
+IFDBG printf("\t\t\t\tLayer Width: 0 (replacing with 1)\n");
+psd_image.layer[layernum].width = 1;
+right++;
+ }
psd_image.layer[layernum].height = bottom-top;
+ if (psd_image.layer[layernum].height == 0) {
+IFDBG printf("\t\t\t\tLayer Height: 0 (replacing with 1)\n");
+psd_image.layer[layernum].height = 1;
+bottom++;
+ }
IFDBG printf("\t\t\t\tLayer extents: (%d,%d) -> (%d,%d)\n",left,top,right,bottom);
--
Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''\
<> [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ The Power to Serve! \
Opinions expressed are my own. \,,\
--- End Message ---
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] http://developer.gimp.org/
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tino Schwarze) writes: > It's broken on Netscape 4.7 (disabling Style Sheets helps, but it > looks rather ugly then). There is text behind the image etc. But I > guess it's nice if displayed correctly. I don't think we have to care about browsers as obsolete and known-to-be-broken as Netscape 4.7. Salut, Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Floodfill
I need a fast non recursive flood fill algorithm/code. Can anyone help me? Thanks Martin -- +++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++ NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen! ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] http://developer.gimp.org/
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 01:37:37PM +0100, Raphaël Quinet wrote: > > I have done a small test design based on the design that drc has done > > and also drc has helped me to make the test developers site look good > > with the changing of colors and images. The test site can be located > > here: http://devel.helloween.kicks-ass.org/ > > That looks nice. That design looks vaguely familiar... ;-) It's broken on Netscape 4.7 (disabling Style Sheets helps, but it looks rather ugly then). There is text behind the image etc. But I guess it's nice if displayed correctly. HTH! Tino. PS: Note that JavaScript and Style Sheets are linked together in Netscape - if you disable JavaScript, Style Sheets are also disabled. -- * LINUX - Where do you want to be tomorrow? * http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/linux/tag/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
