Re: [videoblogging] Re: RSS Channel Images

Sat, 18 Feb 2006 14:00:56 -0800

The thing is, many podcast/vidoeblog feeds rushed to adopt iTunes spec. It is more common to see <itunes:image> than it is to see the standard RSS image tags. So if its in the feed, we'll use it. No need for religious wars. I just find it annoying that we now have to support so many variations of the same standard... there was no need for iTunes to make up their own image tag, they could have just supported what was already in RSS and then we wouldn't have such fragmentation.

The image size thing seems to be simply a recommendation in the RSS spec. But for Apple it probably has to do with how images are displayed in the iTunes directory, which has certain design specs.

-Josh


On 2/18/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i dont understand about the size stuff....
i've seen some huge rss channel images come through. 

can you explain? 

oh and, its kinda funny that FireANT uses iTunes spec ha. 
i look at FA as the Alternative to iTunes.
so stop it!  heheh



On 2/18/06, Clint Sharp < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just as a note, the FireAnt directory prefers iTunes images because of the size limitations of standard RSS images. We need larger images, and whether you like the iTunes spec or not, it's the only thing that provides large images that can be scaled down instead of being scaled up.

Clint

On 2/18/06, Joshua Kinberg < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It says if the itunes:image tag isn't present, it will use the RSS
image tag... can anyone say "redundant"?


-Josh





SPONSORED LINKS
Individual Fireant Use

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS





--
- - - -
Sull
http://vlogdir.com



SPONSORED LINKS
Individual Fireant Use

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS





SPONSORED LINKS
Individual Fireant Use

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



Reply via email to