On Thursday 22 December 2005 21:52, Carsten Lohrke wrote: > On Thursday 22 December 2005 20:14, Drake Wyrm wrote: > > Query: Which would be more appropriate in this case? "jasper" for the > > library it pulls in as a depend, or "jpeg2k" for the functionality that > > library provides? There's nothing else in the tree (as far as I can > > tell) which provides JPEG-2000, but there could be. > > It is imho a _problem_ when use flags are _unnecessarily_ named after the > library instead the provided functionality. When there are two libs doing > the same thing, a single use flag should suffice: Less use flags mean > reduced complexity for the user, who likely will understand what "jpeg2k" > means, but not "jasper". Which leads me to the next issue; Often you can > read: > > foo - enables support for $category/foo > > Such a description is as good as none. To give a sample how it should be: > > jpeg2k - Support for JPEG 2000, a wavelet-based image compression format. > I second this sentiment - global use flags are supposed to be defined broadly so as to allow fairly generic easily understood terms. I know straight away what jpeg2k, but without looking at a description I have no idea what jasper is.
That is why I don't quite understand why Mozilla based browsers use the mozsvg use flag when there is already a global svg use flag available and if you enable svg you can pretty much guarantee you will want it in mozilla too. Users don't need to be bothered with the implementation details, if they want jpeg2k or svg support generally they are not going to be too concerned about which library provides it. I also think jpeg2k should become a global use flag in answer to the original question :)
pgpIPWRJKUbt1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
