Last modified: 2011-03-13 18:06:46 UTC
An image with the "frame" keyword can't be resized. If a size is specified, there's no good reason to ignore it. The behavior should be exactly the same as for "thumb" images. See [[User:Dbenbenn/sandbox]] for an example.
No it shouldn't, the very point of frame is that it's not resized, WONTFIX.
Well, it seems to me the very point of frame is that it puts a frame around the image. Why shouldn't it be resizable? If a size is specified, it is at least somewhat counterintuitive for it to be ignored.
(In reply to comment #2) > Well, it seems to me the very point of frame is that it puts a frame around > the image. Why shouldn't it be resizable? If a size is specified, it is > at least somewhat counterintuitive for it to be ignored. thumb is a resized image (or unresized) image inside a frame, frame however is an unresized image inside a frame.
I see it slightly differently. Thumb is an image inside a frame with a thumbnail icon. Frame is an image inside a frame without a thumbnail icon. Another way of looking at it: If this request is fixed, then all current behavior is still possible, and some additional behavior (namely, resized images with a frame and no thumbnail icon) becomes possible.
(In reply to comment #4) > I see it slightly differently. Thumb is an image inside a frame with a > thumbnail icon. Frame is an image inside a frame without a thumbnail icon. Why would you want a thumbnail without a thumbnail icon? That's bad UI design.
Who knows? Why not leave that choice up to the user? For an image being scaled /up/, the thumbnail icon doesn't make much sense, as it normally means "click to get a larger version of this picture". For example.
(In reply to comment #6) > Who knows? Why not leave that choice up to the user? > > For an image being scaled /up/, the thumbnail icon doesn't make much sense, as > it normally means "click to get a larger version of this picture". For example. An image being scaled up is generally a pretty bad idea *anyway*; and is the thumbnail icon really that big a deal in such circumstances? IMO, the main point of the "frame" keyword is not to hide that icon but to avoid applying default resize to the image - [[Image:Foo.jpeg|thumb]] shrinks the image *as well as* putting it in a pretty frame, so if you couldn't do [[Image:Foo.jpeg|frame]], you'd have to look up the dimensions of the image and "resize" it to its own size, which would just be silly. It replaces the use of large amounts of custom HTML that people used to shove round images to make them look nicer, and in one sense has nothing to do with the image resizing code. I also think that on the whole, allowing both "frame|50" and "thumb|50" with different meanings would lead to *more* inconsistency (when viewing the page) rather than less. From a coding point of view, it would also add yet more confusing use cases into the already convoluted image rendering functions.
(In reply to comment #7) > An image being scaled up is generally a pretty bad idea *anyway* Yes, but sometimes it might be a good idea. For example, the [[Image:Flag of Warsaw-test.png]] can be scaled up without losing any information. > and is the thumbnail icon really that big a deal in such circumstances? No, but why not let users decide about that for themselves? > IMO, the main point > of the "frame" keyword is not to hide that icon but to avoid applying default > resize to the image - [[Image:Foo.jpeg|thumb]] shrinks the image *as well as* > putting it in a pretty frame, so if you couldn't do [[Image:Foo.jpeg|frame]], > you'd have to look up the dimensions of the image and "resize" it to its own > size, which would just be silly. Good point. "thumb" should mean "put the image in a frame with a thumbnail, and apply a default size if none is specified", while "frame" should mean "put the image in a frame". ("frame" currently means "put the image in a frame and ignore any specified size".) > I also think that on the whole, allowing both "frame|50px" and "thumb|50px" with > different meanings They currently have different meanings. In "frame|50px", the 50px is ignored, but not in "thumb|50px". I propose that the size parameter should be interpreted in exactly the same way in all cases. I don't see how that is at all inconsistent.
