On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 01:17:25AM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote: > On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 07:16:22PM +0100, Nick Lamb <njl98r@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > strange to do, it is a supported feature of the file format and OpenGL > > > > apply the patch and (b) I don't think Gimp should offer too many > > features that work around uncommon errors in other systems at a cost of > > If the abovce is true and the file format indeed supports this (in the > spec, if any), then this is not an "error" but "valid but uncommon". Ah no, writing images to TGA with "flip-vertical" flag set is both valid and common, almost universal in fact. But not being willing or able to load top-down images like Gimps would be an uncommon error, I've never yet seen anything that can't cope. The spec, such as it is says to look at the flag and obey it -- no confusion there. The patch is for _writing_ TGA files, and like TIFF there's plenty of wacky things you legally _can_ write to a TGA file, I am offering the opinion that we should generally shield users from the dozens of valid yet unimportant TGA options, and set them for our convenience, as we do with TIFF. I don't think it makes sense to have a dialog like this: [x] Top-left start [ ] Top-right start [ ] Bottom-right start [ ] ... [x] R-G-B [ ] B-R-G [ ] R-B-G [ ] B-R-A-G [ ] Mysteriously allocate but don't use colourmap [ ] Make alternate scanlines inverted for some reason [ ] Write four channels, but then only use three Given that the image will look the same in Gimp either way, have (almost) the same file size, load and look the same in any other working image app... I want to have a genuine REASON to add any options like this before I risk confusing users further. Still, a good reason may be forthcoming and if it is I'll happily integrate this patch or one like it. Nick.
