Re: xpm vs. png

[George <jirka 5z com>]

On Wed, Sep 16, 1998 at 05:47:08PM -0400, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> >  including rgb data directly is better then xpm's ... like the gnome stock
> >  icons ... the only reason to use xpm's is that it's easier
> 
> I don't think so.  Raw RGB data like in gnome-stock-imlib is a major
> bitch to add or change.
> 
> What's wrong with inline xpms for application-specific pixmaps?

well then write a simple converter from xpm to rgb ... then you can just
#include the result ... shouldn't be any harder then using xpms ...
in gnome stock it's all in one file which makes it harder to keep up
to date ...

also I guess it could be included in the makefile .... just build
say .rgb files from .png's or xpms on make ... then you only change
the .pngs, and the app includes the autogenerated .rgb file, this might
be a good way to do the gnome-stock for example

one of the resons for including pixmaps in the program is that if you
have a whole lot of small pixmaps, it would be too slow to read them
from disk ... but the thing is xpm is slow to parse no matter what you
do ... if you have a whole bunch of pixmaps it's much better to include
rgb data .. since it cuts down on the work the program does on startup
... if you have a few larger images, it's better to just use .pngs

George