[Laszlo-dev] autoPng and SWFs -- time to remove the SWFs?

[David Temkin]

To clean these things up:

1. The directories containing the components and demos/examples:  
remove the SWFs, promote the PNGs from the autoPng folder one level up;
2. The LZX source for the components and demos/examples; explicitly  
use the .png files in resource declarations instead of the current .swfs

Or it might be easier to do some/all of this manually.

- D.

On May 28, 2008, at 3:00 PM, P T Withington wrote:

> Not sure what you mean by 'a script to clean things up'?
>
> On 2008-05-28, at 15:58 EDT, David Temkin wrote:
>
>> The PNGs that have been autogenerated are good, both in terms of  
>> appearance and in terms of file size. I don't think we need to add  
>> a manual task here; a script to clean things up would be great.
>>
>> Next step for a designer would be to create a new skin for the  
>> components as a whole. But that's a non-trivial task.
>>
>> - D.
>>
>>
>> On May 27, 2008, at 10:48 AM, P T Withington wrote:
>>
>>> This seems like a fine idea to me, but shouldn't we actually get  
>>> some designer resources to create optimal .png's, rather than rely  
>>> on the auto-generated ones?
>>>
>>> And then we just need to prioritize this w.r.t. everything else  
>>> that is going on...
>>>
>>> On 2008-05-23, at 15:33 EDT, David Temkin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is it time to remove the SWF resources altogether from the  
>>>> components and the non-SWF specific sample apps, and move the  
>>>> contents of the autoPng directories up a level?
>>>>
>>>> The SWFs add confusion both to the source code ("I see SWF  
>>>> resources -- how could that work in DHTML?") and in the way the  
>>>> directories are laid out. And the autoPng mechanism is magic.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think there's a benefit in keeping the SWFs around. While  
>>>> SWFs in some cases may be smaller and/or may stretch better, the  
>>>> confusion and difference between runtimes outweigh the benefits.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> - D.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>