search

IIIF / trc

Technical Review Committee issue review
Apache License 2.0
1 stars 1 forks source link

Maintain alternative pct: format for upscaling (^pct:)? #24

Open mikeapp opened 5 years ago

mikeapp commented 5 years ago

Issue https://github.com/IIIF/api/issues/1741

Pull Request https://github.com/IIIF/api/pull/1814 (line 236)

Preview https://preview.iiif.io/api/1741_image_pct_n/api/image/3.0/#47-canonical-uri-syntax

Summary Question of whether to maintain alternative upscaling form for pct:n. Keeping the ^pct:n form requires clients to be explicit that upscaling is intended and the status codes for the ^pct:n format allow a distinction between upscaling not supported and other syntax errors.

Resolution Decision is to keep both forms and to clarify the status codes to be returned for a non-upscaling request that requires upscaling (e.g., pct:110), and a request for upscaling when upscaling is not supported (e.g., ^pct:110 sent to a server that does not support upscaling).

azaroth42 commented 5 years ago

Issue 24 (Maintain alternative pct: format for upscaling (^pct:)?)

+1: 27 [Siani81 ahankinson aisaac andrewgunther awead azaroth42 beaudet dismorfo emulatingkat glenrobson hadro irv jbhoward-dublin jonhartzler joshuago78 jronallo jwd mattmcgrattan mcwhitaker mejackreed mikeapp mixterj regisrob scossu tomcrane tpendragon zimeon] 0: 2 [cubap jtweed] -1: 0 []

Result: 27 / 29 = 0.93

Super majority is in favor, issue is approved