 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Philippe Debar" wrote:
> Yes, it should...
I ask a question " *Must* the logos bla bla bla... "
To which you answer " Yes, it *should*... "
I use the word "must" while you use the word "should".
Your answer does not fit to the question I asked.
Because of this I cannot accept your vote.
However, I will take note of your opinion and arguments.
Greetings,
Rune
---
Updated April 25: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 10 May 2000 22:50:47 +0200, "Rune" <run### [at] iname com>
wrote:
>I use the word "must" while you use the word "should".
To avoid misunderstandings, please refer to RFC2119 located at
ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2119.txt for the standardised meanings
of: "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD",
"SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY" and "OPTIONAL".
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] usanet
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Peter Popov" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
> >I use the word "must" while you use the word "should".
>
> To avoid misunderstandings, please
> refer to RFC2119 located at
> ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> for the standardised meanings of:
> "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
> "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
> "RECOMMENDED", "MAY" and "OPTIONAL".
Thank you, I will have a look at it when I'm able to reach it.
However, in this case Philippe could see from the context what I meant, and
I could see from the context what he meant.
Greetings,
Rune
---
Updated April 25: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just to be clear :
I would say yes for a picture with 256 colors.
I would say no for a picture with only 2 colors ( hence without antialasing )
> > Short answer : No
> >
> > In pure Black & White : No
> > In shades of gray : Yes
> >
> > Pure black and white is too destructive
> > and would surely ruin any logo (even the
> > best one).
> > The size of the logo is already a limit
> > in itself, turning it into B&W would
> > make it unrecognizable.
>
> Just to eliminate confusion:
>
> When I say no shades of gray I mean in the logo itself only. Anti-aliasing
> is not a part of the logo itself, so shades of gray can be used for
> anti-aliasing.
>
> Having got that extra bit of information, do you still want to vote "no"?
>
> If you do not respond to this message I will presume that you still want to
> vote "no".
>
> Greetings,
>
> Rune
>
> ---
> Updated April 25: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
> Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
> The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
> miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Just to be clear :
> I would say yes for a picture with 256 colors.
> I would say no for a picture with only 2 colors ( hence without
antialasing )
Anti-aliasing is not really a part of the logo itself, so anti-aliasing is
allowed.
I will take note that you vote "yes".
Greetings,
Rune
---
Updated April 25: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Peter Popov" <pet### [at] usanet> wrote in message
news:ackjhsorirt2na2ak719s4msactcc3q2vf@4ax.com...
> To avoid misunderstandings, please refer to RFC2119 located at
> ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2119.txt for the standardised meanings
> of: "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD",
> "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY" and "OPTIONAL".
I just never imagined there were RFC-standardised meanings. Kind of scary.
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Point taken.
> Must the logo be presentable and easy
> recognizable when viewed in just black
> and white (with no shades of gray)?
* Must as a moral obligation for designers : yes
* Must as a rejection rule : no
Povingly,
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Philippe Debar" wrote:
> Point taken.
>
> > Must the logo be presentable and easy
> > recognizable when viewed in just black
> > and white (with no shades of gray)?
>
> * Must as a moral obligation for designers : yes
> * Must as a rejection rule : no
Thanks, I'll take note that you vote "no" to the question I asked.
I will also take note of your other statements.
Greetings,
Rune
---
Updated April 25: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 11 May 2000 10:37:59 +0200, "Philippe Debar"
<phi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>"Peter Popov" <pet### [at] usanet> wrote in message
>news:ackjhsorirt2na2ak719s4msactcc3q2vf@4ax.com...
>> To avoid misunderstandings, please refer to RFC2119 located at
>> ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2119.txt for the standardised meanings
>> of: "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD",
>> "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY" and "OPTIONAL".
>
>I just never imagined there were RFC-standardised meanings. Kind of scary.
Only for documents which explicitly state that. It helps avoid
misunderstandings.
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] usanet
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 10 May 2000 22:38:58 +0200, Rune wrote:
>"Peter J. Holzer" wrote:
>> ObVote: yes.
>
>What does ObVote mean?
"Ob" means "obligatory". It comes from newsgroups which aren't really
discussion groups, like rec.humor. When people discussed
there instead of posting jokes, they often included a short
joke at the end and preceded it with "ObJoke", to show that they knew
that this group is only for posting jokes, but that they really wanted
to discuss this and didn't care much about the joke. In alt.peeves it
became sort of a fad to prepend "Ob" to just about everything.
>It is your vote right?
Yes.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Nicht an Tueren mangelt es,
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | sondern an der Einrichtung (aka Content).
| | | hjp### [at] wsracat | -- Ale### [at] univieacat
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | zum Thema Portale in at.linux
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
