Re: [Uri-review] [uri-review] Review Request for Icon URI Scheme
Pierre-Antoine LaFayette <pierre@alumni.utoronto.ca> Wed, 02 June 2010 12:29 UTC
Return-Path: <pierre@alumni.utoronto.ca>
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 1B5AB3A6994 for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jun 2010 05:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.823
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.823 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FRT_SOMA2=2.199, HTML_MESSAGE=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 xT5wST9iswVI for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jun 2010 05:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 695F93A67D4 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jun 2010 05:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gyh4 with SMTP id 4so4648002gyh.31 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 05:29:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.101.129.17 with SMTP id g17mr8635338ann.101.1275481769821; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 05:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a10sm42065134anj.19.2010.06.02.05.29.27 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 02 Jun 2010 05:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gyh4 with SMTP id 4so4647946gyh.31 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 05:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.150.241.17 with SMTP id o17mr7728304ybh.415.1275481767224; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 05:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.230.5 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Jun 2010 05:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <htoqtp$9g3$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: <m2v743256c51004050812w2a5a95f2y57104ee6aafa0be6@mail.gmail.com> <htoqtp$9g3$1@dough.gmane.org>
From: Pierre-Antoine LaFayette <pierre@alumni.utoronto.ca>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 08:29:07 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTile_sWmYhGkxZDXORcaU7QuORLq9XpKFg10JG5I@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Smith <unknown_kev_cat@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd6a716a723b804880b3dba"
Cc: uri-review@ietf.org
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: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 12:29:48 -0000
Thank you for providing such an in depth review of the draft. I will be making changes to the draft to address some of the concerns you raised. Not including a special syntax for folder icons was an oversight. The "parent" directory icon is also one that I would like to include. I did not allow the encoding of mime types for simplicity sake. I felt that the vast usage of the media type would be on standard types whose icons don't vary based on the parameter. I can't think of one that does off the top of my head. I will look into the SVG icons; I was not aware that they were available on some platforms. Concerning the ambiguous wording, I will do my best to update the language used so as to make the details of the specification more clear to implementors. Thanks! On 28 May 2010 12:27, Joe Smith <unknown_kev_cat@hotmail.com> wrote: > > "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 mailing list > Uri-review@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review > -- Pierre.
- [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