[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: TMS comments



On Wednesday 04 September 2002 15:34, Jens Finke wrote:
> Hi Raphaël.
[...]
> You see, it requires more basic changes in the TMS. It could be done the
> following way: You have to decide if there is a local .thumbnails dir, if
> so then generate a relative URI hash and check it against the local
> .thumbnails dir. If this fails, then calculate the absolute URI hash and
> check against the global .thumbnails dir in your home.

This addition is useful and this behavior could even be marked optional so
a client may generate thumbnails in ~/.thumbnails despite the existance
of a relative thumbnail directory.

The relative thumbnail directory should be called different then
the home-based so no confusion happens if someone wants a
relative thumbnail directory in ~/

> IMHO such special cases should be avoided in the TMS. Although I see the
> practical benefit of your proposal. But we won't get it without the
> sketched changes AFAICS.

It doesn't affect the rest of the standard, it's an addition without
side-effects, no ?

I'd love to see a .thumbnails/Small/ directory added in the standard
containing images no larger then 64x64. 64x64 is enough for many people
(using it in Konqeror without problems) and will help people over slow
network connections (more then anybody else).

The section about 128x128 says that images smaller then 128x128
wouldn't get an entry, this should be said for 256x256 accordingly
for clarification (and for 64x64 if you add Small).

kai





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]