CCSMB-3: bimg File Format #22
Conversation
|
Note that I'm unsure if CCSMB-3 was already reserved but I saw we jumped from 2 to 4 |
|
If you are planning to edit more stuff, please make this a draft. Currently it looks like it a proposal |
tomodachi94
added
the
status: work in progress
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good; see my requested changes.
Also, a few notes:
- We should refer to "bimg renderers (must|should|may)" instead of just "bimg". (See also my third point.)
- We should avoid embedding images unless necessary, preferring code blocks to screenshots of images.
- We should use RFC 2119 phrases (MUST, SHOULD, MAY, etc) instead of phrases like "can".
Otherwise, this proposal is extremely well-written.
Co-authored-by: Tomo <[email protected]>
tomodachi94
added
the
status: stale
|
|
||
| | Field | Type | Description | | ||
| |:--|:-:|:--| | ||
| | `version` | `string` | Format version of the file. Used to differentiate two bimg file formats. Composed of three numbers separated by dots, defining the major, minor, and revision number respectively. | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be nice if this value included the string "BIMG", so that the file format can be determined immediately without needing to probe the rest of the file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i think this should be a seperate field, to ensure backwards compatibility
|
Make sure to define a file extension, perhaps |
EmmaKnijn
removed
the
status: stale
| For animation support, see [Animations](#animations). | ||
|
|
||
| ## Frame Structure | ||
| A single frame MUST be composed of multiple numerically-indexed tables, each representing a single line of the image. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should this be multiple or at least one?
Here's a first copy and header change for bimg, this would close #19