[argyllcms] Re: targen and -c parameter
- From: Vittorio Villani <vittoriovillani@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: ArgyllCMS List <argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:02:13 +0100
Now it is very clear. Thanks :).
Vittorio
> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 23:07:23 +0000
> From: profiling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [argyllcms] Re: targen and -c parameter
>
> Hi :)
>
> On 18/11/10 21:15, Graeme Gill wrote:
>
> > Does this scan any better ?
> >
> > Note that this will only have an effect if an algorithm that uses
> > perceptual
> > placement (such as -R, -Q, -I or the default OFPS with an -A value >
> > 0.0) is being used.
>
> Yup, I think so. If I were to be *really* nit-picky I'd suggest that
> there's quite a lot in the brackets separating "placement" and "is being
> used", so it might be clearer to phrase it like so:
>
> "Note that this will only have an effect when using an algorithm that
> uses perceptual placement (such as -R, -Q, -I or the default OFPS with
> an -A value > 0.0)."
>
> (Note, though, that how the orignal sentence scanned wasn't the problem
> as such - the confusion merely stemmed from an incomplete clause
> following the "IF". Kind of interesting actually - there's a parallel
> between how that sentence ends and writing "if(x) {...}" instead of
> "if(x!=0) {...}"!)
>
> All the best
> --
> Alastair M. Robinson
>
Other related posts:
