Last modified: 2011-03-13 18:06:46 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 2698 - It should be possible to resize a framed image
It should be possible to resize a framed image
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
File management (Other open bugs)
1.5.x
All All
: Lowest enhancement (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2005-07-04 17:20 UTC by David Benbennick
Modified: 2011-03-13 18:06 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description David Benbennick 2005-07-04 17:20:41 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.
Comment 1 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 2005-07-04 17:21:51 UTC
No it shouldn't, the very point of frame is that it's not resized, WONTFIX.
Comment 2 David Benbennick 2005-07-04 17:25:00 UTC
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. 
Comment 3 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 2005-07-04 17:26:50 UTC
(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.
Comment 4 David Benbennick 2005-07-04 17:40:55 UTC
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.
Comment 5 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 2005-07-04 17:48:29 UTC
(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.
Comment 6 David Benbennick 2005-07-04 17:56:50 UTC
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.
Comment 7 Rowan Collins [IMSoP] 2005-07-04 20:05:39 UTC
(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.
Comment 8 David Benbennick 2005-07-04 21:18:52 UTC
(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.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links