Jurgen Gaeremyn wrote: > Op maandag 24-09-2007 om 22:13 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef John > Beardmore: >> Jurgen Gaeremyn wrote: >>> Op zondag 23-09-2007 om 22:56 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Craig >>> Bradney: >>>> On Sunday 23 September 2007 22:47:25 Louis Desjardins wrote: >>>>> Gregory Pittman a ?crit : >>>>>> John Beardmore wrote: >>>>>>> The first is the ability to embed images within .sla files. At the >>>>>>> moment, if I move a document, it seems to loose all the links to >>>>>>> pictures as though relative paths were used to locate them. While I >>>>>>> accept the principle that a lot of disk space can be saved by referring >>>>>>> to pictures elsewhere in the file system, this can be a nuisance when >>>>>>> projects are being developed on multiple machines over multiple sites. >>>>>>> For me at least, using the .sla files as a container that includes all a >>>>>>> documents images would be a huge benefit. >>> If anything, I'm quite in favor of this type of option... let it be a >>> zipped collect folder for as far as I care... >>> >>> Furthermore... I can really imagine myself fiddling with a layout... >>> importing a picture... not liking it ... fetching another one... still >>> not liking it... tweaking the first one in Gimp... importing that one >>> again... etc... Basically, I'd have a .sla file needing only 1 >>> picture... but Scribus will become sluggish because of all the >>> copy/delete action involved in this type of collecting... >> I don't see why it need to if the rejected images are removed from the >> collection ? > > Okay... I'll spin the "live collect" issue out here... I'm getting a > certain image. Since I select the "collect all" option by default, it > collects the image and puts it in the folder... (causing a few extra > commands, some network traffic). Next I delete it... (causing the > "delete" command to be executed) etc... > > Obviously, if a collect only happens upon saving, this situation is not > happening...
I guess, but with most pictures being a few meg, and most LANs being 100mbps, I can't get excited about the network traffic. All this hardware and software is here to make me productive right ? I bought it to work for me, not to give it 'time off for good behaviour' ! And if I was working over a low bandwidth link, all the more reason to cache images locally if I want to see how they look. And how much network bandwidth is needed to delete even a 100 meg file ? But I don't want to restrict how you work - I just want all of us to have the options we need. >>> Just my first practical impression. I guess a "collect" feature is best >>> at the end. I would be happy seeing an option to save as "collected >>> sla.zip" for example. ;) >> Maybe part of my issue with this is people saying "at the end". It >> could be the end of the edit rather than the end of the project. >> >> And would the .sla file live in the zip ? I suppose what I'm also keen >> on is the notion of all the resources identified so far being able to >> live in one container. > > If you ask my opinion (even though it's not that relevant, since I'm not > that big of a Scribus user) ... I'd opt for scribus being able to read > the zipped file (including the .sla) natively. One file for one complete > project. No hassles when mailing, when copying, etc... Agreed. Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore, MSc EDM (Open), B.A. Chem (Oxon), CMIOSH, AIEMA, MEI. Managing Director, T4 Sustainability Limited. http://www.T4sLtd.co.uk/ Carbon Trust Consultant - Energy Audit and Design Advice. Energy Efficiency Accreditation Scheme Registered Assessor. P:0845 4561332 F:0870 0522417 M:07785 563116 Skype:t4sustainability
