RFC: Including extensions in embedded images?

[crc]

With some of my recent work on the build system, it's now easier to
update the embedded images. Because of this, I'm wondering how you
feel about having some of the extensions (extend.retro,
retrospect.retro, and/or editor.retro) in the embedded images.

Doing so would make the initial images a bit larger, but would provide
a richer wordset, especially for the implementations (java, .net,
javascript) that don't support loading files as an input source.

-- crc

[nigol]

I think, it's a good effort as you provide some choices, which
extensions to include. For example in MIDP version I'm using slightly
modified editor because different memory mappings and limited display
capabilities.

Martin