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
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
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:image
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 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:
icon src='...' or icon href='...'
I've drafted a Pace for this...
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, subscribing to a
* 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, needed
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
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
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 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
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:
link rel=shortcut icon href=/favicon.ico/
Question: would it be of value to people like Graham and Brent if we
were to
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 linked favicon is
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
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
+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
--
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
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 link into a kitchen sink by using it to point to things
that are intended
18 matches
Mail list logo
