On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, vio wrote: > * Stephen J Baker <sjbaker@xxxxxxxx> [020304 10:27]: > > On 4 Mar 2002, at 4:10, vio wrote: > > > > > After browsing the gimp-1.3 TODO list, I would like to add my little > > > suggestion of things I would wish from Gimp: how about also developing > > > a clear path towardsGimp as a "web graphics server". > > > > Wouldn't it make more sense to push Gimp's scripted rendering features > > into the browser (as a plugin) and send just the script to the user's > > machine for interpreting? It would presumably be a LOT less bandwidth > > than sending out an image...particularly if you are doing animations. > > I don't understand what you mean by "Gimp's scripted rendering features"? > That the Gimp plugin/script source code is stored on the browser side? (Not that I'm particularly advocating this as a thing to do - but...) I meant: Sending the plugin source code to the browser from the server along with whatever it takes to invoke it with the right options. Of course this means scripting in a 'safe/portable' language that can't be used to create terrible havoc on the client side - so this is probably a non-starter. > And a browser plugin: which browser? Exactly. Indeed. OK - forget it - I was just thinking that it would be better to transmit a couple of dozen lines of ASCII script than a megabyte of image generated by that script...but it's not really going to work for lots of reasons. ---- Steve Baker (817)619-2657 (Vox/Vox-Mail) L3Com/Link Simulation & Training (817)619-2466 (Fax) Work: sjbaker@xxxxxxxx http://www.link.com Home: sjbaker1@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sjbaker.org
