W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > March 2011

[Bug 12365] Add @fullsize to <img>

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 03:13:03 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Q2ayt-00021e-0y@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12365

--- Comment #8 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2011-03-24 03:12:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)

* we look for attribute with *semantics* as primary effect. 
* the effect should be to express that, when it is used, then @src can be
treeated (by users, search engines, browsers themselves etc) as a preview image
for the image inside the new @foo attribute.
* The preview image does not need to be a small size preview of a larger image.
It could also be for example be a "before" image, and the fullsize attribute
could contain the "result" image. (But perhaps this is to stretch its meaning?)
But the name of the attribute we are looking for should be one that hints that
the current img is merely a preview of the image that this new attribute points
to.

* My primary use case is "image galleries". Gallery is a wide term. The
thumbnail alike examples of Wikipedia is one example of galleries - I agree! 
But in Wikipedia's case, the fullsize (for lack of a better name) image is
located at another "page". Whereas often, in javascript image galleries, the
fullsize image is displayed in a display area on the same page. I hope, of
course, that the attribute could work in both situations.

* Galleries create user expectations: they expect to get a beter - or alternate
- quality image when they click the image. Thus they understand that the
current image is a preview of some sort. 

* One effect that one could perhaps get could be that the @fullsize images were
preloaded so the larger image could be displayed faster.  

    Names, link types, quality:
    ----------------------

*Link types: When it comes to the option of using a link type instead, then we
should first look at those link types we already have:

  - 'prefetch' ? <a rel=prefetch href=large><img src=* alt=*></a>
  - 'alternate'? <a rel=alternate href=large><img src=small alt=*></a>

  Of the two, perhaps 'alternate' is best? (But both could be used together!).
The problem is its definition: "The keyword creates a hyperlink referencing an
alternate representation of the current document.". The image linked to is not
meant to be an alternative of the current *document* but an alternative of the
current image. (In fact, HTML5 says that all link types defines a relation
between the page and the linked resource - and not a relation between that
which is inside the link and the linked resource.)

* Perhaps one could also simply use one of these link type names as name of the
attribute. E.g. <img src=* prefetch=* alt=*>. Or  <img src=* alternate=* alt=*>
  In using the name as an attribute, we are more free in our interpretation of
it - the link type names have largely frozen meaning, I think. For instance, it
is not common, I think, to use rel="alternate" about simply a larger copy of
the same image. (We mean "full size"  and not "more bytes" - it is about
quality!)  A word such as "prefetch" is probably far too functional therefore.
And @alternat is too dull.

* But 'alternative quality' is still a keywords here: a name which says that
the @src is simply another (typically inferior) quality for that which
this-new-attribute points to. 

* Name dropping with an eye primarily at 'quality': 

   @aug/@augmented/@augsrc ('augumentative authoring'). 
   @altimg
   @view 
   @viewsrc
   @altview
   @altsize
   @source (a 'large/long' attribute. Plus that small size is often made  by
scaling down something big.)

We should probably avoid names which can be interpreted as if the attributes
ponts to something that the browser can display instead of the @src. Names such
as @view and @viewsrc or @fullview are good because they are active - they hint
that they contain stuff that that the user can view if she/he will.

A bad thing with 'fullsize' is that if, like in Wikipedia, ther are several
sizes, then the resource inside @fullsize might not actually point to the
largest size of the image.

* Question to you: should the presence of the attribute we are discussing make
the image into an interactive element? (Probably not.)

Comments/Ideas?

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2011 03:13:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 March 2011 03:13:13 GMT