I'd rather import them at a fixed resolution, so that an experienced
user could resample the image before insertion and have it actually
put every pixel into the document (instead of scaling many of them
away).
The user's always free to resize the image, but starting at a fixed
width seems like it would be wrong about 100% of the time, whereas
a fixed resolution could be adjusted for beforehand.
> So this brings me to a thought I've been kicking around for a little
> while. What are the objections to using imlib? It has the scaling
> functionality that we want, it works on similar data structures to what
> we have set up internally (if I understand correctly), and it knows how
> to load many image types into the same internal structure, so we
> automagically get multiple graphics format import functionality (imlib
> supports PPM, PGM, TIFF, PNG, XPM, JPEG and EIM internally).
I'm not really sure how cross-platform imlib is either. As far as
I can remember, the reason we didn't use it initially was because
we figured we could always add it later, and libpng was there and it
was enough for proof of concept.
Another imlib drawback is that it isn't one library, as I remember...
it requires all the supporting libraries for the image types it
wants to support. For example, to load PNG, TIFF, XPM, JPEG, and
GIF, one would need imlib, libpng, libtiff, libxpm, libjpeg, and
libgif installed. If this has changed, let me know...
> Like I said in the beginning, though, I'm hesitant to even make
> suggestions, because I can't back them up with code right now (no
> time).
Suggestions are always welcome. :)
-- Shaw Terwilliger