Also sprach Brion Vibber:
> > I'm curious about your reasons for setting 145px, though.
>
> It looked good at that size. :)
>
> The default sizes being based on width alone is pretty horrible -- it
> makes the actual total image size dependent on the aspect ratio, so
> images will be varyingly annoyingly small or annoyingly large. Thus
> nearly every image needs to be customized to look decent inline.
It seems that you are seeking an certain area for the thumb, not an
exact width. This is quite reasonable. It's fairly easy to compute
this server-side and sort images into a few different classes (e.g.:
square, portrait, landscape, x-landscape, x-portrait). Each class
would be given a certain width for a certain media type. E.g.,
@media screen {
.thumb.portrait { width: 145px }
.thumb.landscape { width: 160px }
}
@media handheld {
.thumb.portrait { width: 40% }
.thumb.landscape { width: 50% }
}
> In theory we could create a new, more useful set of generic sizes
> targetting sidebar-type floats, page-wide panaramas, half-page-ish
> diagrams (which might need to be full page-width on a small screen) etc.
Exactly.
-h&kon
Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª
howc...@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
