Re: [office] Proposal for modification of preview image description

[Thomas Zander <zander@kde.org>]

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

PGP signature