So I think I wasn't wrong about the agreement. Apparently, I used the wrong
method to apply it though :(
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 6:26 AM, Brion Vibber <brion(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Simetrical wrote:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Huji
<huji.huji(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I had my own reasonings in support of stopping images less than
120*120 to
> scale up. Duesentrieb materialized my idea
in few words excellently
while we
> were chatting over IRC: "scaling up
generally doesn't make sense.
maybe it
> would be nice to be able to force it in some
cases, not sure. if that
should
> be allowed, it might be best to leave it to
the client". If you ever
use a
> slow internet connection and browse one of
the galleries of small
icons on
> Commons, you will notice how page load is
extended merely because the
images
are
being downloaded in a larger (in KB) scaled-up (thus no more nice
looking) sizes.
Generally we don't rely on client-side scaling, because in many cases
it's awful in quality.
Scaling up (eg when requested explicitly) is always left to the client,
as:
a) it's going to look awful anyway ;)
b) no sense making, storing, and transferring a larger image
-- brion
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l