Subject: Revised PaceIconAndImage, added PaceMultipleImages

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 22:49:57 -0800

Having produced my own Atom feed has made me a supporter of this Pace; 
without getting too deep into it <link rel="self" feels quite sensible, 
while <link rel="icon" feels stupid.

However, this Pace needed work; first of all, it was based on link 
constructs, which no longer exist.  So I revised it.

Second, along with turning Icon and Image from <link> into their own 
elements, it changed the cardinality, allowing more than one 
<atom:image> in <atom:head>.  I think this is probably a bad idea, but 
I'm 100% sure that it's wrong to mix up this with the (entirely 
separate) debate on whether to use <image> instead of <link>.   So, I 
ripped it out of PaceIconAndImage and created a new PaceMultipleImages 
to suggest this.

Third, along with these other changes, the Pace changed the 
<atom:image> aspect ratio from 2:1 to 1:1.  Once again, this may be a 
good idea, but it needs discussion.  But I kind of think this may have 
been a cut&paste typo, so I ripped it out but didn't create a new Pace, 
if someone really wants to change the Aspect ratio they should create a 
Pace.

Having said all that, I'm +1 on PaceIconAndImage.

I'm -1 on PaceMultipleImages, this is an  experimental feature, Atom, 
doesn't need those, YAGNI.
  -Tim

---

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:33:35 +1100

> while <link rel="icon" feels stupid.

+1

> constructs, which no longer exist.  So I revised it.

I based it on Link Constructs because I was (a) trying to avoid spec bloat,
and (b) being lazy.

The Link Construct did provide for more than just a URI though -- there's
@type, a title attribute (which could be used for the @alt), and (pushing
it) @hreflang for those atom:image with text rendered. I'm happy to lose
@hreflang, a user agent could use /feed/head/tagline instead of @title, and
@type really isn't necessary because the set of image formats is pretty
stable.

So, +1.

(with minor revisions ... change the section numbers to suit -05, and added
cardinality to section "4.2 the atom:head element", otherwise the spec
wouldn't say just where those elements could be used)

> ripped it out of PaceIconAndImage and created a new PaceMultipleImages

+1. I wish more paces were decoupled. (makes note to self)

> <atom:image> aspect ratio from 2:1 to 1:1.

That must have been a copy/pasto. I know I set the atom:icon aspect ratio to
1:1, and thought I kept the 2:1 aspect ratio for atom:image.

> Once again, this may be a

Yep, copy/pasto ... no, wait ... it actually said:

>> === 4.2.y atom:image Element ===
>>
>>   The "atom:icon" element is a Link construct that conveys a URI to an
>>   image resource which provides visual identification for a feed. The
>>   image SHOULD have an aspect ratio of 2 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical).

2:1, but I did have a copy/pasto brainfart with the name of the element in
the prose of the section.

> Having said all that, I'm +1 on PaceIconAndImage.

+1

> doesn't need those, YAGNI.

fair enough - there's been enough flack over multiple content.

e.

---

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 09:10:02 -0700

+1
> ... and @type really isn't necessary because the set of image formats
> is pretty stable.
> So, +1.
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.

>> ...it changed the cardinality, allowing more than one
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.

+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.)

---

From: Henry Story <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 17:42:49 +0100

I am +1 on having images, or what I call entry illustrations. BlogEd 
has those, and they
work nicely. See <http://today.java.net/jag/> or 
<http://bblfish.net/blog> for blogs that
use them.

Notice that the top entry (the Feed itself) has an illustration too. 
Which is another hint
that a Feed is a subclass of an Entry.

Of course if they did not make it into the spec it would be easy to add 
them as extensions.
So the effort in speccing this would not be wasted.

You may want to consider that an icon of an image is also related 
somehow
to the original. In the feeds mentioned above, clicking on the icon 
brings you to a
the original image the icon is a representation of. In one case [1] it 
occurred to me
that have been more intuitive to have clicking on the image bring up a 
video.

Henry Story

[1] http://www.bblfish.net/blog/page3.html#25

On 2 Feb 2005, at 07:49, Tim Bray wrote:

> without getting too deep into it <link rel="self" feels quite 
> sensible, while <link rel="icon" feels stupid.
>
> been a cut&paste typo, so I ripped it out but didn't create a new 
> Pace, if someone really wants to change the Aspect ratio they should 
> create a Pace.
>