- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 08:20:38 -0400
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org
Charles McCathieNevile (13 sept. 2007 - 14:24) :
>> As I understand it, the whole point of keeping mentioning Flickr
>> is that from the point of view of Web development in general, it
>> isn't odd but a showcase Web 2.0 app.
>
> I don't think that's relevant, Flickr is mentioned because unlike
> most images, the image is central to the meaning of a flickr page.
> There are plenty on Web 1.0 tools that do the same thing - and the
> same issues apply.
The only way to address this without having to mention Flickr all the
time is to compare the output of different softwares and services.
Having the ouput of these software would help to understand how we
can improve the language and how we could try to get the developers
team of these applications to check the specification.
(Plus the fact that they may have specific needs for producing better
output. HTML is th sum of the needs of implementers.)
Software with Web Photo Album feature.
* Apple iPhoto
* Apple iWeb
* Apple Aperture
* Adobe Photoshop CS2
* Adobe Lightroom
* iView MediaPro (became recently MS Expression Media)
* Picasa
* Flickr
* Freshmeat gives also a zillion of references of Photo Album software.
http://freshmeat.net/
I'm on a F2F meeting and traveling these days, but I'm willing to
compare what some products do. Other people are welcome to test too.
Don't forget to test how the authoring part is done. uploading one
image or 50 doesn't create the same constraints.
etc.
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Saturday, 15 September 2007 12:20:47 UTC