Image formatting

[fluffy-critter]

From a blog comment by wibi:

i noticed that for each image in the images field, there's multiple media objects allowed but only one alt text; if the idea is that all of the media are supposed to be the same image in different resolutions/formats i think that should be explicitly specified; it seems feasible otherwise that users might use the media objects might for actually different images (e.g. the artwork image's media containing both album artwork and track artwork) with the text in alt specifying each image in turn (e.g. Image 1: The album artwork, featuring so and so. Image 2: The track artwork, featuring a different so and so). if that's acceptable use, then it would make more sense for each media to have its own alt field

my response:

That part is a bit half-baked right now but yes the intention is that they are all different renditions of the same image. Basically I was trying to capture / without being beholden to HTML. It’s probably major overkill.

This is definitely a part of the spec as written that I’m not happy about and I’ve seen a bunch of other prior art (eg RSS media enclosures and <picture> and so on) which always feel like overkill but I also want to give the receiver every opportunity to select the right rendition for display without needing to potentially download a gigantic image and regenerate thumbnails. But given the security/trust concerns with malicious images, maybe it should always be expected that the image is at some common large resolution and then the receiver caches appropriately-sized renditions instead.

[fluffy-critter]

I feel like the spec as of d0f23a4 does a good job of capturing what's actually necessary. But others can definitely chime in!