Re: [Uri-review] [uri-review] Review Request for Icon URI Scheme
"Joe Smith" <unknown_kev_cat@hotmail.com> Fri, 28 May 2010 17:50 UTC
Return-Path: <giu-uri-review@m.gmane.org>
X-Original-To: uri-review@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DB2A3A68D7 for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 May 2010 10:50:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 4.702
X-Spam-Level: ****
X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_60=1, FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD2=1.502, FRT_SOMA2=2.199, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Eks-PLceyGSV for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 May 2010 10:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5238D3A63EB for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 May 2010 10:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <giu-uri-review@m.gmane.org>) id 1OI3h6-00032u-3V for uri-review@ietf.org; Fri, 28 May 2010 19:50:04 +0200
Received: from oh-74-5-162-102.dhcp.embarqhsd.net ([74.5.162.102]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 May 2010 19:50:03 +0200
Received: from unknown_kev_cat by oh-74-5-162-102.dhcp.embarqhsd.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 May 2010 19:50:03 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: uri-review@ietf.org
connect(): No such file or directory
From: Joe Smith <unknown_kev_cat@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 12:27:21 -0400
Lines: 122
Message-ID: <htoqtp$9g3$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: <m2v743256c51004050812w2a5a95f2y57104ee6aafa0be6@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: oh-74-5-162-102.dhcp.embarqhsd.net
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 30 May 2010 03:12:42 -0700
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] [uri-review] Review Request for Icon URI Scheme
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 18:13:10 -0000
"Pierre-Antoine LaFayette" <pierre@alumni.utoronto.ca> wrote: > >I've put together a draft document for an icon URI scheme, >used for displaying platform specific icons in web pages, >that I would like to get some feedback on. I have no particualar issue with the basic idea, but I have some conerns with current specification. >An icon URI MUST resolve to an icon image resource. Fine. If the URI resolved to something else, it would defeat the whole idea. However, I have concerns about the phase "icon image resource". What is an icon image resource? Where is that defined? I'm not sure it is. Perhaps a phrasing like "image resouce representing the icon", or somthing of that nature would be better. >The fextension or the mediatype sections of the URI MUST be used to >resolve the respective platform icon for a filetype That is poorly worded. It could be read as an implemenation may choose to resolve the the url to the platform icon, or to some other "icon image resource", but that if it chooses to resolve to the platform icon, it must utilize the fextention or mediatype to resolve it (as opposed to telepathy, or something). I'm pretty sure you intended something like: "the resolved icon MUST be the platform icon for the specified fextention or mediatype." I'm still not comfortable with that. I feel it should be "SHOULD". There may be valid reasons to substitute icons other than the platform icons. For example, there exist browser that are design to approximate how a page would be seen if viewed on a mobile device[1]. In that case, the correct behavior would be to use icons other than those of the platform, namely the icons that the mobile device would use. > If an icon is not available for the specified filetype, applications > MUST return a default icon. Oddly this only requires some default icon, not necessarily the platform's default icon. But it would be a bad idea to specify the platform's default icon as a MUST. If that is desired add it like "... a default icon, which SHOULD be the system icon for files of unknown type." This would permit platforms that don't support file icons to just always use some default, since "an icon is not available for the specified type" would always be true. That sounds fine. > The icon resource's dimensions MUST match the size indicated > in the URI or use the default size. Given the security concerns, this is reasonable. > Applications are REQUIRED to support icon URI resolution by > file extension. Fair enough, although i would qualify this with ", unless the platform does not support icons for file extentions." or something like that. > The size MUST be either an integer value representing the > size of the icon in square pixels ... Square pixels sounds like you are talking about a unit of px^2, so 100 square pixels is 10x10. Perhaps there is annoter clearl way to indicate that you mean that the pixels should be square, so the resulting icon image resource is square. > In the event that the platform does not support > one of the keyword icon sizes or a user-provided > size, the application SHOULD scale the icon appropriately. Out of curiosity, what other oprtion does the application have? It MUST return an "icon image resource" of the specified dimention. The only other options seem to be to add padding to a smaller icon, or use a default icon of the exact size. Other notes: The urls "icon:" and "icon:;small" are valid according to the spec, by way of the definition of mediatype having no requrred elements. Since such a URI invokes the mediatype production, section 5.2 applies, so the resulting icon will be the default icon. That is suitable behavior, although it was not clear that that was intended. If it was intended, i would suggest incluing them as examples so implementers don't accidentally miss that. There is no way to request the icon representing a folder or directory, since they have no file extention, and no registered mime-type. freedesktop.org has created the unofficial mimetype 'inode/directory', but that has not been registered, and as far as I know neither Windows nor OS X utilize this type. This is a shame since directories are pretty much universal. other special icons may not be portably availble, but directories generally are. Your format does not permit encoding of mime type parameters, depite the fact that those can form an integral part of the mime type, and RFC2045 permits mimetypes with required parameters. It is possible that the icon could vary based on the parameter. You specification should probably touch on supporting scalable icons, such as SVG (text/svg) icons. (Some platforms do support svg icons). Basically they must just expose it in the same way it exposes such an image from an img tag that has hight and width attributes set as specificed, and make sure there is no acess to the image content. Any later resizing og the image, either by the browser zoom or by manipulation of the DOM object will not leak any information to the webapp, so everything is fine. In a similar fashion a browser could treat Microsft icons (ico files, image/vnd.microsoft.icon) in a scalable fashion. Fundementally that format could be thought of like a bitmap with hinting information for use use when downscaling the image. If the broswer supports the format like that, then it would always use the most apporiate version even when being dynamically resized, but without leaking information to a webapp. [1] An example is the application iPhoney, except that I am not sure if the iPhone is even a platform with file icons. If it does have support, it is by nature of still having that port of OS X intact, but I don't belive any offical appication ever shows file icons, and I don't think the API exposes icons. But a similar app for to simulate a Windows Mobile browser could exist, and Windows Mobile does support file icons.
- [Uri-review] [uri-review] Review Request for Icon… Pierre-Antoine LaFayette
- Re: [Uri-review] [uri-review] Review Request for … Toby Inkster
- Re: [Uri-review] [uri-review] Review Request for … Joseph Holsten
- Re: [Uri-review] [uri-review] Review Request for … Julian Reschke
- Re: [Uri-review] [uri-review] Review Request for … Ira McDonald
- Re: [Uri-review] [uri-review] Review Request for … Pierre-Antoine LaFayette
- Re: [Uri-review] [uri-review] Review Request for … Julian Reschke
- Re: [Uri-review] [uri-review] Review Request for … Alfred Hönes
- Re: [Uri-review] [uri-review] Review Request for … Pierre-Antoine LaFayette
- Re: [Uri-review] [uri-review] Review Request for … Julian Reschke
- Re: [Uri-review] [uri-review] Review Request for … Pierre-Antoine LaFayette
- Re: [Uri-review] [uri-review] Review Request for … Joe Smith
- Re: [Uri-review] [uri-review] Review Request for … Pierre-Antoine LaFayette