According to Paul Rohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > The design tradeoff is clear, but my original point still stands. If users > insert BHIs, I don't mind forcing them to pay a scaling penalty for doing > so. I *do* mind forcing all platforms to include JPEG support. In a > resource-constrained environment (my hypothetical settop box), that kind of > cost gets expensive. [1] unless you box does not do web browsing (which is unlikely to happen theses days), it is likely that the box will already have JPEG support just because it is to widely used on websites. No ? Hub
- Re: XP design for image support WJCarpenter
- Re: XP design for image sup... Sam TH
- Re: XP design for image sup... rms
- Re: XP design for image sup... Sam TH
- big honkin' images (was Re:... Paul Rohr
- Re: big honkin' images (was... Sam TH
- Re: big honkin' images (was... Hubert Figuiere
- Re: big honkin' images Paul Rohr
- Re: big honkin' images Hubert Figuiere
- Re: big honkin' images Paul Rohr
- Re: big honkin' images Hubert Figuiere
- Re: big honkin' images Paul Rohr
- Re: big honkin' images Thomas Fletcher
- [README] Re: XP design for image support Thomas Fletcher
- Re: XP design for image support Dom Lachowicz
- Re: XP design for image support Martin Sevior
- Re: XP design for image support Hubert Figuiere
- Re: XP design for image support Leonard Rosenthol
- Re: XP design for image support Hubert Figuiere
- Re: XP design for image support Leonard Rosenthol
- Re: XP design for image support Michael D. Pritchett
