[Openid-specs-ab] Spec call notes 25-Aug-11
allentomdude at gmail.com
Fri Aug 26 18:33:18 UTC 2011
I think it is important that the user's profile picture be available in
multiple sizes, so I'm glad that the WG is considering this.
I don't think that clients should specify the size using the Accept HTTP
easily set the header. It looks like Gravatar, Twitter, and Facebook all use
the technique of specifying a base image URL, with an optional size
parameter. This sounds like a reasonable approach.
(arbitary size - always square format though)
I had proposed that the OpenID Connect profile picture be returned using a
base URL. The default size can be left undefined, but clients are able to
optionally specify the desired size using an optional parameter. In order to
avoid having to specify what "small/medium/large/x-large" means, we can do
something like gravitar and let the client specify the size in pixels.
2011/8/26 Andreas Åkre Solberg <andreas.solberg at uninett.no>
> On 26. aug.2011, at 03:19, Edmund Jay wrote:
> John offered the following options:
> a) new scope for requesting picture sizes
> b) RP makes explicit claim request
> c) Expand schema to include "small", "medium", and "large"
> BTW, here is how gravatar is doing this:
> (I'm not saying that I neccessary like it, I just include it as an
> A related topic, is content type negotiation. Would it be an idea to
> suggest to use 'Accept' header as the reccomended way of negotiating which
> image format that is presented?
> Accept: image/gif;q=0.5,
> image/jpeg;q=0.8, image/png;q=0.9, image/svg+xml;q=1.0
> I would propose that if we say anything about accept parameters and/or size
> parameters, it would just be reccomendations to providers that would like to
> offer multiple formats and sizes; and not a requirement.
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Openid-specs-ab