[standards-jig] UPDATED: User Avatars (JEP-0084)
cbas at screaming3d.com
Wed May 21 17:39:18 UTC 2003
I also feel that this resolution cap is not based on any good reason.
Scaling is what clients will be doing anyway. It's common sense.
Restricting the proportions is also an arbitrary decision. What if a
client uses elliptic or rectangular shaped avatars?
If the concern is about renegade clients uploading megabyte-size avatars
at 700dpi (lol) then just put a cap on the filesize. Maybe a maximum of
I would like to leave these limitations up to the implementation because
there is no way to enforce them. Calling it a broken implementation is
not going to solve anything.
Heiner Wolf wrote:
>I do not like the "MUST be between thirty-two (32) and sixty-four (64)
>pixels". Is it possible to make this a SHOULD. What do you do if the
>other client sends a larger image? Ignore it? Show an error? Or rather
>be a nice guy (read: developer) and scale it appropriately?
>Dr. Klaus H. Wolf
>bluehands GmbH & Co.mmunication KG
>+49 (0721) 16108 75
>>From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:stpeter at jabber.org]
>>Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 9:47 PM
>>To: standards-jig at jabber.org
>>Subject: [standards-jig] UPDATED: User Avatars (JEP-0084)
>>I've received an updated version of JEP-0084 (User Avatars)
>>Jabber Software Foundation
>>Standards-JIG mailing list
>>Standards-JIG at jabber.org
>Standards-JIG mailing list
>Standards-JIG at jabber.org
More information about the Standards