Subject: Re: PaceIconAndImage

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 09:16:08 -0700

On Thursday, January 27, 2005, at 09:08  AM, Antone Roundy wrote:
> Also, why limit this to feed/head, and not entry?
If we ARE going to limit images to feeds, then please, let's change the 
name to "logo".  If it were "logo", I'd agree it doesn't belong in 
entry.

---

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 12:20:59 -0700

On Friday, February 4, 2005, at 09:16  AM, Antone Roundy wrote:
> If we ARE going to limit images to feeds, then please, let's change 
> the name to "logo".  If it were "logo", I'd agree it doesn't belong in 
> entry.
>
Let me restate this in a way that might lead to action: I have a 
sneaking suspicion that we're not going to get consensus on allowing 
image and/or icon in entry.  If that's the case, would anyone object to 
me changing <image> to <logo> in the Pace?

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 14:37:44 -0500

> me changing <image> to <logo> in the Pace?

That would be bogus a rule. How does it hurt interop to put an image in 
an entry?

Robert Sayre

---

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 12:48:58 -0700

On Friday, February 4, 2005, at 12:37  PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
>> image and/or icon in entry.  If that's the case, would anyone object 
>> to me changing <image> to <logo> in the Pace?
>
> That would be bogus a rule. How does it hurt interop to put an image 
> in an entry?

Just to be sure this is clear, I am not advocating that limitation--it 
is imposed by the Pace, and I seem to recall hearing opinions on both 
sides about whether entries should have images and/or icons.  I'd be 
happy to allow both, though I doubt icons would get used much in 
entries.  I just want to be sure that if we DON'T allow images in 
entries, we use a name for the element that makes sense to me to limit 
to the feed level.