Subject: Re: XP design for image support
From: Paul Rohr (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Apr 20 2001 - 14:18:46 CDT
At 09:59 AM 4/20/01 +0200, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
>According to Paul Rohr <email@example.com>:
>> Of course. That can (and does) happen. My platform doesn't support
>> That's why I was so happy to see Mitchell add BMP and Hub get close to
>> adding JPEG. Thrilled, in fact.
>I'm not close. It is just a matter of committing the actual code, but some
Yeah. For me, that's so *painfully* close, it hurts. :-)
>So what I'm willing to do is to commit my importer alone to the CVS and
>provide a patch on the mailing to really add the support (by modifying)
>Makefiles and 2 other sure file to declare the importer.
I think that a big part of the objection here (from both Dom and Thomas, but
perhaps for different reasons) was that we didn't have a good way of keeping
this *out* of the binary for platforms who didn't need it. Thus, the long
design debates that we may (cross fingers and toes) be close to the end of.
I really need to go revive that switching mechanism thread, because that's a
way to solve platform-specific config issues like this.
>Then you'll see the easyness and efficiency.
I'm sure it is. In a former life, I worked with libjpeg (along with some
much-hacked platform-specific GIF, BMP, and XBM code) to add XP progressive
image display to web browsers. It's a sweet piece of code that's very easy
>And I volunteer too.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Fri Apr 20 2001 - 14:11:10 CDT