Re: png transparency
From: Chris Tacke, eMVP (ctacke_at_spamfree-opennetcf.org)
Date: 02/27/04
- Next message: Chris Tacke, eMVP: "Re: Tab Key"
- Previous message: Alex Yakhnin [MVP]: "Re: Sharing Violation"
- In reply to: Elisa: "Re: png transparency"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:27:53 -0500
Not sure what book you're talking about. I'm not writing a book, nor do I
plan on it. In fact I turned down the request.
Yes, transparency support is very limited and could be improved greatly, but
there have been several examples posted that use transparency without
resorting to P/Invoke. If you can get a transparent color without
P/Invoking, is seems to me that would be "support" for transparency on some
level.
Now is that level enough to do what everyone wants? Obviously not. Many
people have been frustrated with the limitation. But look for example at
serial port access. If your core business is writing apps for industrial
controllers, you're not going to care about transparency, but serial
communication is critical. The only way to use a serial port from managed
code is by writing a *lot* of P/Invoke code. That is what I call "not
supported".
So if you had limited resources and could implement one feature, either
transparency or serial communication support, which would you add? In your
case, probably transparency. For others it would be the serial port. Many
decisions like this had to be made during the development process of the CF.
Thinking that because your specific feature ended up on the losing end of
one of those decisions in v 1.0 and wasn't implemented somehow means that
Microsoft is either completely inept or maliciously trying to sabotage your
project by making you do extra work is laughable.
-- Chris Tacke, eMVP Co-Founder and Advisory Board Member www.OpenNETCF.org --- Windows CE Product Manager Applied Data Systems www.applieddata.net "Elisa" <Elisa@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:nFC%b.909$1M4.43753514@hebe.telenet-ops.be... > Hi Chris, > > > Sorry to side with Microsoft on this, but yes, in my book that does mean > > transparency is supported. [...] Not supported, IMHO, means "can't be done" > > Sorry if this is getting slightly off-topic, but this morning during our > project meeting our team had just such a great laugh with your book's > interpretation of the word "SUPPORTED" as "it CAN be done", I couldn't > resist. > > If your book hasn't been published yet, feel free to use any of the > examples below to illustrate your definition of "SUPPORTED". > > + "Our application supports resolutions upto 4096x4096 pixels" > - Ok, our forms still are 240x320 pixels so you'd need binoculars, but > it CAN be done. > > + "Our company supports the starving children all over the world" > - We don't actual make any contributions, but on the other hand, we > don't actively prevent these children from eating either. Supported > simply means: it CAN be done! > > + "Our PDA supports a battery life of 50 years" > - Well, there aren't any such batteries on the market, but if they'd > ever appear, our PDA supports them, it CAN be done. > > + "We support every initiative to create secure and robust applications" > - In reality, we couldn't care less, support simply means: it CAN be done. > > + "Our Framework supports transparency" > - Ah, it doesn't actually come with ANY controls that support > transparency, but you're welcome to write every control yourself, it CAN > be done. > > All joking aside, for those who believe "SUPPORT" means a more active > involvement than Microsoft's and Chris's passive interpretation, visit > http://www.care.org, and REALLY support the starving children all over > the world! > > > Regards, > > Elisa
- Next message: Chris Tacke, eMVP: "Re: Tab Key"
- Previous message: Alex Yakhnin [MVP]: "Re: Sharing Violation"
- In reply to: Elisa: "Re: png transparency"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
