Just a point of data; most logos are designed to look good at a 1-to-1
aspect ratio.
On Jan 24, 2005, at 5:25 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
On Jan 24, 2005, at 5:18 PM, Joe Gregorio wrote:
+1
Should there be a suggested size for images?
A suggested aspect ratio, actually. Drat. Brent Simmons loved this
/ Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
| On Jan 26, 2005, at 7:16 PM, Graham wrote:
|
|> Can you outline the problem[s] that having a icon link tag in the
|> feed might cause? HTML already has a meta tag for it, so it seems
|> like a simple feature-parity issue.
|
| Well, I don't think we
On 29/1/05 5:15 PM, "Asbjørn Ulsberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know what we're talking about and still don't understand why embedding
> so-called «favorite icons» is so wildely different from embedding other
> types of graphical objects in feeds (at all levels) that it has to be done
> in a
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 16:47:09 +1100, Eric Scheid
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maybe "image" is the wrong name for the concept. We're not talking about
some random image associated with some entity, we're talking about a
branding badge or logo of some kind which is representative of the feed.
I know
On 29/1/05 4:22 PM, "Asbjørn Ulsberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceIconAndImage
>
> Nice. But if we have both atom:icon and atom:image for the feed, why do we
> need to do all kinds of wierd stuff to have images attached to Atom
> entries? Can't atom
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:12:41 +1100, Eric Scheid
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceIconAndImage
Nice. But if we have both atom:icon and atom:image for the feed, why do we
need to do all kinds of wierd stuff to have images attached to Atom
entries? Can't a
On Wednesday, January 26, 2005, at 10:40 PM, Eric Scheid wrote:
so, "icon" ... or "favicon".
I prefer the latter.
I prefer the former. "favicon" => "favorites icon". I think
"favorites" is a bad name for bookmarks--a person's reason for
bookmarking something (or in the case of Atom, subscribin
On 27/1/05 7:26 PM, "Henri Sivonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd prefer an element, because the nature of the favicon reference is
> not that a user would want to manually follow the link. That is:
>
> or
I've drafted a Pace for this...
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceIconAn
On Jan 27, 2005, at 07:40, Eric Scheid wrote:
agreed, a single term @rel value is preferred.
I'd prefer an element, because the nature of the favicon reference is
not that a user would want to manually follow the link. That is:
or
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://iki.fi/hsivonen/
On 27/1/05 3:38 PM, "Sam Ruby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> atom:@rel doesn't allow for multiple space delimited values.
>>
>> e.
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2003Jun/0133.html
agreed, a single term @rel value is preferred.
the "shortcut icon" thing is borked ... the link
On 27/1/05 3:01 PM, "Tim Bray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For quite some time, my XHTML has contained the following:
>>
>>
>>
>> Question: would it be of value to people like Graham and Brent if we
>> were to "register" this rel value for Atom feeds?
>
> Heh, didn't know that. Much bett
Eric Scheid wrote:
On 27/1/05 2:25 PM, "Sam Ruby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For quite some time, my XHTML has contained the following:
Question: would it be of value to people like Graham and Brent if we
were to "register" this rel value for Atom feeds?
that's not "a" value. that's two @rel value
On Jan 26, 2005, at 7:25 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2003Jun/0132.html
For quite some time, my XHTML has contained the following:
Question: would it be of value to people like Graham and Brent if we
were to "register" this rel value for Atom feeds?
Heh, di
On Jan 26, 2005, at 7:16 PM, Graham wrote:
Can you outline the problem[s] that having a icon link tag in the feed
might cause? HTML already has a meta tag for it, so it seems like a
simple feature-parity issue.
Well, I don't think we're after feature-parity with HTML :)
Seriously, the existing "H
On Jan 26, 2005, at 7:25 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
On Jan 26, 2005, at 5:54 PM, Brent Simmons wrote:
I agree with that. It's something many feed producers care about --
I get email just about every day asking how to make a favicon appear
in my software. And I always wish I could say th
On 27/1/05 2:25 PM, "Sam Ruby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For quite some time, my XHTML has contained the following:
>
>
>
> Question: would it be of value to people like Graham and Brent if we
> were to "register" this rel value for Atom feeds?
that's not "a" value. that's two @rel values
Tim Bray wrote:
On Jan 26, 2005, at 5:54 PM, Brent Simmons wrote:
I agree with that. It's something many feed producers care about -- I
get email just about every day asking how to make a favicon appear in
my software. And I always wish I could say that there's a way to
specify it in the feed.
On 27 Jan 2005, at 2:24 am, Tim Bray wrote:
Uh, the way browsers do it is just like the way robots.txt works.
They do a GET on "/favicon.ico", hardwired path, and (at least some of
them) just silently ignore it if it's not 16x16. This sucks (just
like /robots.txt sucks) because if you have mul
On Jan 26, 2005, at 5:54 PM, Brent Simmons wrote:
I agree with that. It's something many feed producers care about -- I
get email just about every day asking how to make a favicon appear in
my software. And I always wish I could say that there's a way to
specify it in the feed.
I would favor sp
On Jan 26, 2005, at 5:03 PM, Graham wrote:
What's our story on favicons? Quite a few programs support them and
most presumably do it by guessing the URI from the feed URI (or
possibly downloading the home page and looking for the URI there). I
think it's a hole in RSS that needs plugging by us.
On Jan 26, 2005, at 5:03 PM, Graham wrote:
On 26 Jan 2005, at 8:00 pm, Tim Bray wrote:
Hearing no objections, I modified the Pace to say the image SHOULD
have an aspect ratio of 2 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical). -Tim
What's our story on favicons? Quite a few programs support them and
most presuma
On 26 Jan 2005, at 8:00 pm, Tim Bray wrote:
Hearing no objections, I modified the Pace to say the image SHOULD
have an aspect ratio of 2 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical). -Tim
What's our story on favicons? Quite a few programs support them and
most presumably do it by guessing the URI from the feed
On Jan 24, 2005, at 5:25 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
On Jan 24, 2005, at 5:18 PM, Joe Gregorio wrote:
+1
Should there be a suggested size for images?
A suggested aspect ratio, actually. Drat. Brent Simmons loved this
idea, and I meant to update the draft. Would anyone be upset if I
updated the draft t
+1.
(with proposed tweaks)
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:44:46 -0500, Dan Brickley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Ray Slakinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-01-25 10:40-0500]
> >
> > +1 from me, I'm happy to see this added!
>
> +1 likewise to http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceEnclosuresAndPix
>
* Ray Slakinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-01-25 10:40-0500]
>
> +1 from me, I'm happy to see this added!
+1 likewise to http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceEnclosuresAndPix
Dan
> On 24-Jan-05, at 7:18 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
> >If there were no further discussion: Got no -1's, seems useful, n
On 26/1/05 3:59 AM, "Asbjørn Ulsberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> -0.7. Turns into a kitchen sink by using it to point to things
>> that are intended to be pre-fetched and presented along with the content
>
> I agree. I think we should have chosen another element name. turns
> out to be HTM
A suggestion on drafting of the pace: cardinality should be stated.
The idea of multiple parallel elements formatted per PaceEnclosuresAndPix
was discussed with interest, and the cardinality of RSS 2.0 enclosure
elements has been written up and discussed quite a lot, so the cardinality
of PaceE
AsbjÃrn wrote:
-0.7. Turns into a kitchen sink by using it to point to
things that are intended to be pre-fetched and presented along with
the content
I agree. I think we should have chosen another element name.
turns out to be HTML's where just Âeverything goesÂ. I don't
like it, but if
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:08:36 -0700, Antone Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
-0.7. Turns into a kitchen sink by using it to point to things
that are intended to be pre-fetched and presented along with the content
I agree. I think we should have chosen another element name. turns
out to be
+1 from me, I'm happy to see this added!
On 24-Jan-05, at 7:18 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
If there were no further discussion: Got no -1's, seems useful, needed
for feature parity with RSS2, will likely go in absent some
objections. -Tim
[-]
Ray Slakinski
GnuPG Fingerprint:
C8AD 4847 2DA8 3469 0
Tim Bray wrote:
Would anyone be upset if I
updated the draft to say an aspect ratio of 2 (horizontal) to 1
(vertical)? -Tim
Not me. +1
cheers
Bill
On Monday, January 24, 2005, at 05:18 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
If there were no further discussion: Got no -1's, seems useful, needed
for feature parity with RSS2, will likely go in absent some
objections. -Tim
-0.7. Turns into a kitchen sink by using it to point to things
that are intended to b
On 25 Jan 2005, at 1:18 am, Joe Gregorio wrote:
Should there be a suggested size for images?
Yes. -1 on images section if suggested sizes aren't added. I think
favicons are more commonly displayed than logo images, so a link type
or at least suggested size for them would be welcome.
Graham
smim
On Jan 24, 2005, at 5:18 PM, Joe Gregorio wrote:
+1
Should there be a suggested size for images?
A suggested aspect ratio, actually. Drat. Brent Simmons loved this
idea, and I meant to update the draft. Would anyone be upset if I
updated the draft to say an aspect ratio of 2 (horizontal) to 1
+1
Should there be a suggested size for images?
-joe
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:18:00 -0800, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If there were no further discussion: Got no -1's, seems useful, needed
> for feature parity with RSS2, will likely go in absent some objections.
> -Tim
>
>
If there were no further discussion: Got no -1's, seems useful, needed
for feature parity with RSS2, will likely go in absent some objections.
-Tim
36 matches
Mail list logo
