[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Proposal for modification of preview image description
On Wednesday 01 August 2007 10:49:31 Michael Brauer wrote: > Well, this probably can be said in better words. I'm very open for > suggestions. I'm wondering why there was a requirement for 24-bit and alpha and non-interlace. My guess would be that this is the most common png format (there are a LOT of subformats) and everyone will be able to read those. I especially recall windows not being very good at supporting PNGs. Has this situation changed that its ok to release these requirements? > In addition, the thumbnail image size has an > impact on the document size. The larger the image gets, the larger the > documents get. That may not be an issue for desktop systems, but may be > for small devices storing many small documents. So, taking it all > together, the "optimal" thumbnail image size depends on many factors, > and it seems to be reasonable to me to allow implementors/users to > choose an image size that is appropriate for their use case and > platform, rather than to require a certain one in the specification. > The same applies to other PNG parameters that we have in the > specification A 256x256 image is some 7.5Kb. A 128x128 is barely 3kb. So, I'm not convinced. I still think we need a minimum of 128x128, and I'd like some more info on the other specs as well before we just throw them away. -- Thomas Zander
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]