The numista catalog does not correspond to anything, so we're trying to align at least the coins which were struck under two different rulers and have different km# in SCWC.
Before making any change requests (CR), I would like to hear your comments to these suggestions:
for now, mintmarks cannot be attached to yearlines; they're displayed next to the mint; we plan to add this feature but I cannot say when we already can attach mint letters and other marks to yearlines
for now, mintmarks cannot be attached to yearlines; they're displayed next to the mint; we plan to add this feature but I cannot say when we already can attach mint letters and other marks to yearlines
So you have seen we need both, since for the NEI coins, you can have up to 4 privy marks for a km#?
for now, mintmarks cannot be attached to yearlines; they're displayed next to the mint; we plan to add this feature but I cannot say when we already can attach mint letters and other marks to yearlines
So you have seen we need both, since for the NEI coins, you can have up to 4 privy marks for a km#?
You can already attach privy marks to yearlines, I do not understand?
The mintmarks that are still missing for this KM just still need to be drawn and added so they can be selected for the year lines in modification requests. I'm (admittedly slowly) working my way through the list for Utrecht.
So the numista community is waiting for you? Why do you want to redesign, these .jpg are fully OK, aren't they, just examples, and no waiting time:
Please explain?
We use vectorized drawings instead of pixels photo because it allows a responsive display on all devices aand reduces by a lot the weight of the file. Black and White make sense to me to unify marks, whatever the metal on which the're used for instance. Also, using photos would mean displaying copyright for each of them, would not be pretty in the yearlines table…
Please stop copy pasting same questions in multiple threads, it makes the forum a mess :-)
So the numista community is waiting for you? Why do you want to redesign, these .jpg are fully OK, aren't they, just examples, and no waiting time:
Please explain?
Not that I'd owe you an explanation for anything, I started adding more to what was already there for Utrecht in my already scarce spare time when it seemed that no one else was. But I sure don't need to. Make them yourself or use whatever else makes you happy.
I'm just trying to understand, why we're using the vector image format. So far I still haven't understood how to achieve it from scratch. I have figured out, that is possible to convert a .jpg, .png or whatever into the wanted .svg format. I've also understood, that it is about avoiding any copy right claims and gain a few Kb (not an argument nowadays, where 1 Tb costs far less than a 100 euros).
I understand where you're coming from, and it's of course great if more efficient solutions are found. As Compendium said, the vector graphics have the advantages of smaller size (also relevant to page loading speed, and especially on mobile devices) and scaling. As was now said on the other thread, the latter is not that important given that the default size of the icons on the page is rather small.
I'm not sure converting jpg to svg will really tackle the size aspect, as all the information contained in the jpg will still be there.
Status alterado para Feito(Jarcek, 10 Out 2023, 15:33)
