Re: ICNS as default format

[Riccardo Mottola]

Hi,

I agree with Fred. Supporting icns is fine for compatibility reasons, 
but it proved a format to be rather difficult to implement and a bit 
unportable. The current implementations has endianness and portability 
probelms (and the other one based on an external dependency was only 
marginally better).

Tiff is also a very well supported format: I love to be able to create 
icons and imagery in GIMP, photoshop or whatever else. I still find 
MacosX uncomfortable in that direction, especially since they removed 
even backward compatibility.

Riccardo

On 06/09/2011 10:46 AM, Fred Kiefer wrote:
> On 09.06.2011 01:22, Gregory Casamento wrote:
> > Just a quick thought....
> >
> > I'm wondering if we shouldn't consider using icns as the default for
> > icons.  Once the icns implementation is completed it should, in
> > theory, adjust to the optimal resolution for the given size.
>
> Not sure what the benefit would be. The tiff format can also hold 
> multiple images at once and the tiff library we use is more common 
> than the icns one. And our own icns loading code is rather incomplete. 
> I should know that having written most of it.
>
> Just to quote from that file:
> /*
>   The following code is a drop in replacement for libicns. It may be used
>   when the library is not available or unsuited due to its licence 
> (Currently
>   GPL 2). This code was mostly build based on the documentation found at
>   http://icns.sourceforge.net/apidocs.html. It also includes icns 
> decoding
>   ideas based on code in mySTEP.
>   Only limited formats are implemented and some errors still exist.
>  */
>
>
> Fred
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnustep-dev mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev