On Wednesday, February 2, 2005, at 12:33 AM, Eric Scheid wrote:
On 2/2/05 5:49 PM, "Tim Bray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:+1Having produced my own Atom feed has made me a supporter of this Pace;+1
without getting too deep into it <link rel="self" feels quite sensible,
while <link rel="icon" feels stupid.
Yeah, if you want a hint at the image type, check the filename--it won't always end in a recognized ".gif", ".jpeg", ".png", etc., but should often enough.... and @type really isn't necessary because the set of image formats is pretty stable. So, +1.
Agreed. At the feed level, one image is plenty. If entries get images (see below), then multiple images could be useful in some limited cases, but it would probably be a really slim edge case. If someone wants multiple images in an entry, they can use (X)HTML <img />. With multiple images, it's likely the publisher will want that level of control over their presentation anyway....it changed the cardinality, allowing more than one <atom:image> in <atom:head>. I think this is probably a bad idea, but
Having said all that, I'm +1 on PaceIconAndImage.+1
+1
Three questions (and my opinions--and reasoning (principled reasoning?)):
1) Should entries be able to have images? (Yes. Entries COULD include images using (X)HTML's <img /> elements, but atom:image would give consuming applications much greater flexibility in how they arrange their display. If publishers want an image displayed in a particular manner, they can use (X)HTML's <img /> element. I would think this would be a great way to publish images from camera phones, for example--snap off an image; add a little text; post it. Then why isn't everyone doing it that way using RSS 1.0's <image /> or RSS 2's <enclosure />? ...uh, because they haven't had that "Aha!" moment yet!?)
1a) Should we recommend an aspect ratio for entry images? (No. That would be an unnatural constraint. People are going to be posting source images of all shapes, and (almost) forcing the images into one shape woudl be too heavy handed.)
2) Should entries be able to have icons? (Hmm...I'm torn. I can imagine it being put to good use, but I doubt it would be widely used. I'd be happy either way.)
3) Should images have a @title or @alt or some such thing? (If entries get images, then yes--cramming that in summary or some such place feels sloppy. If only feeds have images, then it's not so important.)
