Subject: Re: Graphic Images
From: Sam TH (sam@uchicago.edu)
Date: Fri Apr 20 2001 - 12:39:51 CDT
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 10:24:01AM -0700, WJCarpenter wrote:
> dom> It's worthwhile to also consider those apps which also wish to
> dom> generate ABW documents, such as KWord, wvWare, a CGI or perl
> dom> script, a bonobo component using abi as its viewing component,
>
> That's half the picture (but time-distant in importance to the rest of
> the world). Sorry my fingers were too tired to actually say clearly
> what I meant.
>
> I was talking about the other half. Suppose you want to export an .ABW
> document into format .FOO because you want to send it to someone who
> uses FooWriter, and it doesn't grok .ABW. What format do you use for
> the embedded graphics? If FooWriter can handle PNG perfectly, no
> problem. If FooWriter has problems with PNG but gets other formats
> right, the other formats are probably better candidates.
>
> Now, you can blame this on FooWriter is you like (lots of fun, but not
> productive to the end users). However, what will it look like if you
> receive a .FOO from someone, edit it slightly (and in the process
> convert the embedded, unchanged graphics to PNG), send it back, and to
> the FooWriter user it looks like crap? I think the answer is obvious:
> AbiWord will look like it broke a good document.
I think that here we want to export to their native format (unless
it's gif, since that's illegal). Anything else would be just broken
(literally). But for .abw, we should limit the formats we export.
sam th --- sam@uchicago.edu --- http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
OpenPGP Key: CABD33FC --- http://samth.dyndns.org/key
DeCSS: http://samth.dyndns.org/decss
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Fri Apr 20 2001 - 12:27:39 CDT