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

Re: PaceIconAndImage - icon aspect ratio

To: Antone Roundy <antone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: PaceIconAndImage - icon aspect ratio
From: Robert Sayre <mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 12:19:16 -0500
Cc: atom-syntax@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <9EA76822-753D-11D9-B0C7-003065EA6144@geckotribe.com>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-syntax.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-syntax-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <9EA76822-753D-11D9-B0C7-003065EA6144@geckotribe.com>
Sender: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206)

Antone Roundy wrote:

The "atom:icon" element's content is a URI which identifies an
image which provides iconic visual identification for a feed. The
image SHOULD have an aspect ratio of one (horizontal) to one (vertical),
and should be suitable for presentation in small size.
Is there any reason why the aspect ratio shouldn't be a MUST? Aren't icons (on computers, anyway) pretty much universally 1:1?

LiveJournal images are square.

Robert Sayre

References:
- PaceIconAndImage - icon aspect ratio
  - From: Antone Roundy

Prev by Date: Re: tagline -> subtitle
Next by Date: Re: tagline -> subtitle
Previous by thread: PaceIconAndImage - icon aspect ratio
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread