Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:
> Alright, let's get back to the issue then.
>
> Scenes are explicitly designed by these people called "scene designers."
>   They make their scenes to look a certain way.

I do *not* think that this is "the issue".

I rather think that "the issue" is that

(a) Yes, there are scene designers that pick their scenes' aspect ratio with
care (I do, for instance);

(b) However, there are also scene designers that don't, and

(c) There are "end users" (i.e. people taking other peoples' scenes and
rendering them) who for some reason find the scene designer's decision (or
non-decision) questionable (if only because the original aspect ratio doesn't
happen to fit their desktop background image size).

The question to be solved here, in my more-or-less-humble but strong opinion, is
*not* the political one who is right in this issue and who is wrong, but the
*technical* question of how to do *all* parties justice.

I think the relevant ingredients have been mentioned already: Give the scene
author a way to *explicitly* express how he intends the scene to be rendered
regarding aspect ratio; give the "end user" a way to *explicitly* express *his*
intentions about this; and devise rules to consolidate the one with the other.

If the scene author fails to express his intentions, ignore them by default
(because how could they be respected if they are not known?); if he does
express them, respect them by default. If the end user disrespectfully requests
to override them, do so.


As for the political side: If an artist - such as a book author - publishes a
work, he loses all rights what *individuals* for their *own private* purposes
do with the work. They can tear off the cover, bury it alive, have their dog
dig it up again, burn it, pee on the ashes - whatever they like, with all due
disrespect. So why should there be any protection for POV-Ray scenes if an "end
user" *explicitly* requests to ignore the scene author's intentions?

He *may* have a valid reason to do so. That's the only thing that counts for me
as a software developer: Make things possible.

BTW, the "end user" *may* even *be* the scene author. Would you want to stop
*him* from overriding his *own* proposals?


Your argument relies on the assumption that *all* scene designers put thought
into the aspect ratio issue, and that *all* reasons an "end user" may have to
try and override the author's suggestion are disrespectful in nature.

My argument is that this assumption is wrong not because the contrary would be
true, but because your argument is categorical. Reality isn't all black and
white.


So given that software technology provides us with a means to (a) have the
author explicitly state his wishes, (b) have these wishes respected by default,
and (c) have these wishes overridden by the "end user" if he explicitly desires
to do so - why argue about it? Let's just implement all these options. Let the
author decide whether he enforces a certain aspect ratio or not, and let the
"end user" decide whether he pisses in the author's face or not.


Again, let me restate this: The "end user" may have a valid reason - which is
sufficient to invalidate your argument. Or he may not - which doesn't hurt
mine.

Post a reply to this message