On Tuesday 31 July 2007 20:55:42 Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> Thomas -- you might read the document that Florian linked to before
> jumping on him.
I took his email to reply to, I could have taken any email. My point was
that there is a proposal where the only reason I have seen so far is that
some (unnamed) operating system might not work with it.
I was requesting more info.
> It recommends using 128x128 or 256x256. Are you saying
> we can't allow 256x256?
In vain of the classic mistake of "640kb should be enough for everyone" I
have no problems with changing the spec to requiring a minimum of 128x128
so an implementation can write a 256x256 image or even bigger.
I think the rest of the original text still makes sense, and I'd like to
see the concrete problems faced on which the proposal was based.
--
Thomas Zander
