Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Suggestion concerning tile specs

[David Pfitzner <dwp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

sebauer@xxxxxxxxxxx (Sebastian Bauer) wrote:

> > I guess its a tradeoff between convenience (letting
> > the user change the graphics format without modifying
> > the spec files) and generality (allowing multiple
> > files with different extensions be different and thus
> > have different spec files).  
> 
> I really think that the first way ist the best. I also
> don't see that is less general than the second way.
> The user still can have different gfx file extensions
> (this depends anywhy on the client; which formats it supports) 
> and so different spec files. The only restriction would
> be that he/she cannot have these differnt gfx files in the same
> directory. I don't think that this is a problem because
> if the gfx files really are differnt then it is better
> to do them in different directories as well ;-)
> (hu...much differents, I hope you understand what I mean ;-) ) 

Yes, you are probably right here.

> Also the first way has the adventage that you needn't
> to care in the cvs for the fileformat and you still
> can let the xpm gfx files inside (because both the xaw
> and the gtk understand this format) which is probably better
> than a binary format?
> Which gfx format is really used in the distribution archive
> can be choosen by the creator of the archive. If the
> client can read only xpm he have of course no choice and
> can only incude the xpm files. But if the client understands
> additionally e.g. a png format he can convert the xpms to
> pngs and include them instead.

Yes, but the problem here is that ideally the _base_ format 
should be png, so one can have lots of colours, and that 
would be converted to xpm (with fewer colours) for clients 
which don't support png, not the other way around.

-- David