OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

Hi,

the package part of the specification describes how preview images have 
to be saved. It says:

"Thumbnails must be saved as 24bit, non-interlaced PNG image with full 
alpha transparency. The required size for the thumbnails is 128x128 pixel."

Well, the limitation to 128x128 pixels seems not to be appropriate, 
because different operating system use different preview image sizes. I 
suggest that we remove the other limitations as well. That is, I propose 
that we simply state:

"Thumbnails *shall* be saved in the PNG format."

Best regards

Michael


-- 
Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500
http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
	   D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering

On Tuesday 31 July 2007 17:11:30 Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - 
Hamburg wrote:
> the package part of the specification describes how preview images have
> to be saved. It says:
>
> "Thumbnails must be saved as 24bit, non-interlaced PNG image with full
> alpha transparency. The required size for the thumbnails is 128x128
> pixel."
>
> Well, the limitation to 128x128 pixels seems not to be appropriate,
> because different operating system use different preview image sizes. I
> suggest that we remove the other limitations as well. That is, I
> propose that we simply state:
>
> "Thumbnails *shall* be saved in the PNG format."

Can you explain why this is a problem?  128x128 and all other specs seem 
to be a pretty high-res allowing you to downscale as required.

Furthermore; it seems highly inappropriate to alter the preview size based 
on the operating system of the users preference. Which is what I gather 
you meant with your suggestion.  If not, I'm not sure why there is any 
reason to make the rules any more flexible.

I'm confused.
-- 
Thomas Zander

Thomas,

Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 July 2007 17:11:30 Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - 
> Hamburg wrote:
>   
>>     

Patrick Durusau wrote:

> What about altering preview size based on user preference? Instead of 
> their operating system. Would that be "highly inappropriate"?

I don't know. A user shouldn't care how the preview is stored, even if 
they might want to choose the size at which it's displayed. I don't 
think you want a situation where one implementation does 32x32 and 
another does 256x256?

Bruce

Bruce,

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> Patrick Durusau wrote:
>
>> What about altering preview size based on user preference? Instead of 
>> their operating system. Would that be "highly inappropriate"?
>
> I don't know. A user shouldn't care how the preview is stored, even if 
> they might want to choose the size at which it's displayed. I don't 
> think you want a situation where one implementation does 32x32 and 
> another does 256x256?
>
Sorry, why would that be a problem? Any image support is going to 
support images of varying sizes anyway. What do we gain by setting a size?

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)

Patrick Durusau wrote:

>> I don't know. A user shouldn't care how the preview is stored, even
>> if they might want to choose the size at which it's displayed. I
>> don't think you want a situation where one implementation does
>> 32x32 and another does 256x256?
>> 
> Sorry, why would that be a problem?

If a 32x32 image gets scaled to 256x256 it looks really bad?

> Any image support is going to  support images of varying sizes
> anyway. What do we gain by setting a size?

I don't have a super strong opinion on this, but it seems to me the
preview ought not be too small. So maybe not setting a precise size, but 
  at least a minimum, or a suggested size?

Bruce

Bruce,

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> Patrick Durusau wrote:
>

On Tuesday 31 July 2007 19:11:26 Patrick Durusau wrote:
> >  
>
> What about altering preview size based on user preference? Instead of
> their operating system. Would that be "highly inappropriate"?
>
> While I think we should mandate PNG format (for interoperability
> reasons) I don't think the other requirements are necessary.
>
> I was reminded of user preferences today while trying to proof a
> proposal where the editor to save paper had set the type to 10 pt. It
> is a good thing I am not trying to read it outside because my
> magnifying glass would have set it on fire by this point. The copy I
> got was image only so increasing the size is problematic.

So, you are annoyed that the user choose something that was useless for 
you?

> So, I think Michael's suggestion is a good one.

You do?  So, in contrary to what you just wrote above you think it makes 
sense to let the user choose a lower resolution preview?
I would think that after being annoyed with the users inappropriate logic 
hurting your ability to read his document you'd be all for 1 size 
previews.

Sorry, your logic is lost on me. :(
-- 
Thomas Zander