At 10:31 PM 4/19/2001 +0200, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
>>I'm not seeing the argument for JPEG here. Is the argument here that
>>storing a JPEG as a PNG will take up a few extra bytes?
>
>A few is an oximoron IMHO. That can be up to 10x the size in PNG. That is
>really the justification of JPEG.
You'd also lose support for native CMYK colors - and that's just
talking about today's JPEG and not JPEG2000.
>It is NOT hard. It is just too much. Why for example keeping GIF while PNG
>would store *exactly* the same image and make only one image format to be
>handled instead of two. That is exactly the purpose of having only one
>lossless bitmap image format used within our file format. This apply to
>BMP, TIFF, XBM, XPM, etc.
I'm with Hub on this one! Convert images to either PNG or JPEG
(depending), and vector to SVG. It's a issue of compatibility with the
rest of the world (ie. how much work does someone else have to do to handle
our files!), not just ourselves!
>For SVG, perhaps can we use XML namespace ? (I'm not an XML wizard, feel
>free to correct me).
That's how we should be doing it...
>For other things, I think that storing images as a base64 flow would be a
>good compromise between bloat and compatibility.
XML spec says that binary data either be a Base64 stream or be
referenced externally. No binary data in an XML file.
>For OLE/Bonobo, I request that there is a requirement to store the latest
>state of the object as a picture (choose the best format, SVG coming on
>the first row).
Yup! Martin and I were discussing this the other night on chat...
LDR
