Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Canonical URIs #6

Closed
jpstroop opened this issue Feb 25, 2014 · 4 comments
Closed

Canonical URIs #6

jpstroop opened this issue Feb 25, 2014 · 4 comments
Labels

Comments

@jpstroop
Copy link
Member

It should be possible for a client to request an image and avoid any potential redirects. Furthermore, level 0 implementations may only have one URI that 'works'.

  • Should we recommend adding rel=canonical to the Link header? And if so, to what?
  • Need a recommendation on float v int for rotation
  • What about the #level0 case (all static images)
  • Canonical URI should prefer pixels over pct, due to:
    • The pct:50 problem with odd pixel dimensions as a justification
    • And floating point percents being inaccurate

Region canonical = ‘full’ if the whole thing else pixels, and never pct
Size canonical = full if the native size else w,h
Rotation canonical = 0 (as integer if possible, trim trailing zeros if decimal)
Quality = native if native is what you requested, else lower format is required

Add link header with rel="canonical"

@jpstroop
Copy link
Member Author

See

https://github.com/IIIF/specifications/blob/master/image_api/image_api_1.2.md#47-canonical-uri-syntax

We made a decent pass at this in CPH, so promoting to ready for review.

@zimeon
Copy link
Member

zimeon commented Mar 4, 2014

c.f. issue #5 discussion: should we remove "(those conforming to level 0 only)" so as not to mention the levels?

suggest expanding "a 404" to "an HTTP 404 Not Found response"

otherwise +1

@azaroth42
Copy link
Member

+1 to both suggestions

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Simeon Warner notifications@github.comwrote:

c.f. issue #5 https://github.com/IIIF/specifications/issues/5discussion: should we remove "(those conforming to level 0 only)" so as not
to mention the levels?

suggest expanding "a 404" to "an HTTP 404 Not Found response"

otherwise +1

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/6#issuecomment-36665476
.

@jpstroop
Copy link
Member Author

jpstroop commented Mar 4, 2014

Yup. Consistency++
Sorry I haven't been online much! Planning on giving some time to IIIF
on Thursday.

@zimeon zimeon closed this as completed in 5f30532 Mar 5, 2014
jpstroop pushed a commit that referenced this issue Sep 19, 2017
Relinking to http://iiif.io as this is a proxy link
hadro pushed a commit that referenced this issue Nov 17, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants