| 1 |
On Thursday 22 December 2005 21:52, Carsten Lohrke wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday 22 December 2005 20:14, Drake Wyrm wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Query: Which would be more appropriate in this case? "jasper" for the |
| 4 |
> > library it pulls in as a depend, or "jpeg2k" for the functionality that |
| 5 |
> > library provides? There's nothing else in the tree (as far as I can |
| 6 |
> > tell) which provides JPEG-2000, but there could be. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> It is imho a _problem_ when use flags are _unnecessarily_ named after the |
| 9 |
> library instead the provided functionality. When there are two libs doing |
| 10 |
> the same thing, a single use flag should suffice: Less use flags mean |
| 11 |
> reduced complexity for the user, who likely will understand what "jpeg2k" |
| 12 |
> means, but not "jasper". Which leads me to the next issue; Often you can |
| 13 |
> read: |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> foo - enables support for $category/foo |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Such a description is as good as none. To give a sample how it should be: |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> jpeg2k - Support for JPEG 2000, a wavelet-based image compression format. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
I second this sentiment - global use flags are supposed to be defined broadly |
| 22 |
so as to allow fairly generic easily understood terms. I know straight away |
| 23 |
what jpeg2k, but without looking at a description I have no idea what jasper |
| 24 |
is. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
That is why I don't quite understand why Mozilla based browsers use the mozsvg |
| 27 |
use flag when there is already a global svg use flag available and if you |
| 28 |
enable svg you can pretty much guarantee you will want it in mozilla too. |
| 29 |
Users don't need to be bothered with the implementation details, if they want |
| 30 |
jpeg2k or svg support generally they are not going to be too concerned about |
| 31 |
which library provides it. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I also think jpeg2k should become a global use flag in answer to the original |
| 34 |
question :) |
Archives