Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pkix-logotypes-02.txt

From: [email-masked] (Peter Gutmann)
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 19:44:44 +1200 (NZST)

Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]> writes:

>Was 300x200 a serious suggestion or a joke?

It's roughly the size of typical digitised TV video images (usually closer to
320x240, depending on the source and equipment used), thus it'd make a useful
lower limit, unless you prefer QuickTime animated postage stamps.  However, the
suggestion as a whole was a joke.

Peter.

---

From: "Manger, James H" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 17:48:03 +1000

Russ

How about a field that holds the MIME subtype of the "image" type, e.g. the
"jpeg" part of "image/jpeg".  It is short; it limits types to images; it can
be matched to the Content-type header when dereferencing the URL; it imposes
no restrictions on a URL; it is a managed & extensible name space; it is
independent of O/S.

P.S. Neither MIME type nor file extension offer any help as selectors for
the features you listed: environment, display resolution, colour
resolution...  Perhaps a separate field is needed to indicate a few key
features.

> ----------
> From:	Housley, Russ [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Friday, 17 May 2002 1:17 am
> 
	..The logo might be displayed on a desktop machine, a laptop, a
kiosk, a palm device, or a cell phone.  Each has a different environment,
display resolution, color resolution, and so on.  Therefore, I think the
application needs to know what image formats are available.

	..To me, the question is what provides the application with the best
selector to pick the URL.

	..file extension or a longer MIME type ..I advocate the file
extension.  I have only one reason -- it is shorter.

---

From: "Housley, Russ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 10:00:02 -0400

James:

Thanks for the suggestion.

I recognize that file format is just one dimension for selecting the most 
appropriate image. The authors have been discussion this too.  I think you 
will see a suggestion in the next draft.

Russ