Thomas,
Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 July 2007 21:11:13 Patrick wrote:
>
>>> Sorry, your logic is lost on me. :(
>>>
>
>
>> No, because the 1 size preview is exactly what I got from the other
>> user. He made a choice that I cannot change.
>>
>
> Ah, in that case I agree with you. One thing that is relevant is a small
> reversal of roles; the embedded thumbnail size will never be the choice
> of the user *receiving* the document. Irrelevant of the wording of the
> spec.
> Instead, it will always be defined by the writing ODF implementation.
>
> So, we are talking about what your friend would write out; would we change
> the spec. If he is on a Windows machine it might be a 32x32 image, when
> he is on KDE it might be a 128x128 image. And naturally when you get
> that document you have to live with whatever the original authors
> application wrote.
> So, as you dislike being stuck with what the other user decided, we agree
> that letting that user have a choice is a bad thing.
>
> And this is exactly why having a high-res thumb requirement is a good
> idea; so the other user can't decide on a low-res one for you which you
> are stuck with.
>
Err, ok, but the question is how "high-res" is sufficient? For some
purposes, I may prefer a very "high-res" thumbnail, say 256x256. If we
require, which is what I read the prior language as doing, exactly
128x128, etc., then I don't have that as an option.
What I think you are arguing against is complete freedom (what I
proposed) which would allow users to pick a resolution that is too low
to be useful.
What I was reacting to was defining only one possible value.
Perhaps a compromise? Not less than 128x128 in PNG and dropping the
other requirements? Sets a lower boundary.
Hope you are having a great day!
Patrick
--
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Acting Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
Co-Editor, OpenDocument Format (OASIS, ISO/IEC 26300)