Subject: Re: [netatalk-admins] Netatalk and OPI
From: Hans-Guenter Weigand (hgweigand@wiesbaden.netsurf.de)
Date: Fri Jan 22 1999 - 19:48:00 EST
Sak Wathanasin <sw@nan.co.uk> wrote:
> In reply to Hans-Guenter Weigand's message of the 21/01/99 at 21:24 +0100,
>
>
> > hires files. "mypic.tiff" gets a little brother named "mypic.tiff.lay".
> > This makes it easier to handle both image and XPress (or PageMaker)
> > files in the same dir. If you separate the image files into different
> > dirs you make it more difficult to archive finished and printed jobs. An
> > average path looks like this in the ufs:
>
> Why are you even bothering to archive the low-res? It's a) embedded in the
They are not archived, but they have to be present during the whole
production process. A subfolder named 'layout' is also common practice.
Quite often Xpress files and the low-res files are given to external
people for layout purposes. When these files return, their OPI paths
still must match.
> document (QXpress or Photoshop or whatever) b) can be regenerated from
> tyhe hi-res by the sampler in a few secs anyway. Separate low-res/hi-res
> folders make more sense to me. Besides, tagging on suffices is all very
> well, but you run into the Mac's 31-char limit very quickly (and if it's
> on a Kanji system...)
Mmh, good point. But few people use (too) long names. They seem to
prefer deeply nested folders, which makes the pathnames long, not the
filenames.
And I doubt that there is a Kanji-savvy commercial OPI software running
on Unix...
-hgw
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Dec 18 1999 - 16:16:14 EST